rachelrieger.weebly.comrachelrieger.weebly.com/uploads/1/9/1/4/...theory.docx · web viewin 2012...

Running head: ATTACHMENT THEORY AND CELL PHONE USAGE 1

Attachment Theory: College Students and Cell Phone Usage

Michael Gossen, Jessica Kern, Jacob Roth, Rachel Rieger and Sarah Alt

Loras College

December 2012

ATTACHMENT THEORY AND CELL PHONE USAGE 2

Table of Contents

Chapter One: Abstract ………………………………………………………………………... 3-4

Chapter Two: Introduction ……………………………………………………………………. 5-6

Chapter Three: Literature Review …………………………………...……………………… 7-26

Chapter Four: Discussion of the methods ………………………………………………….. 27-32

Chapter Five: Analysis of the results ………………………………………………………. 33-70

Chapter Six: Summary ……………………………………………………………………... 71-78

Chapter Seven: Limitations of the study …………………………………………………... 74-76

Chapter Eight: Recommendations for further study ……………………………………….. 77-78

Chapter Nine: Conclusion …………………………………………………………………. 79-81

Chapter Ten: References …………………………………………………………………... 82-87

Chapter Eleven: Appendices ……………………………………………………………... 88-165


Chapter One: Abstract

In 2012 88% of Americans reported that they owed a cell phone and 46% of those phones

are smart phones (Gahran, 2012). Approximately 77% of young adults between the ages of 18-

24 are tense and experience anxiety when they are without their cell phone (Kung, 2012). There

has been an 11% in this trend over the past 4 years. The young population is more at risk to

experiencing this anxiety because they are more likely to have smart phones and smart phones

have easy internet access (Kung, 2012). Phones that have internet allow for more capabilities

from a cell phone. Now that cell phones have these incredible capabilities, it allows for more to

be at stake when an individual does not have their cell phone because they are used to having

their phone with them. By comparing Bowlby’s Attachment Theory to this trend it is possible to

determine if college students are attached to their cell phone. The attachment theory consists of

four components: safety haven, secure base, proximity maintenance, and separation distress

(Main, Hesse & Hesse, 2011). The research question asked in this study is: What component(s)

of attachment do college students experience with their cell phones? It was hypothesized:

College students are experiencing at least one or more of the four attachment theory components

with their cell phones.

To determine the research question data was collected from 158 first year, sophomore,

junior, and senior students at a small, private, catholic college in the Midwest. The participants

completed a 25 question questionnaire asking various questions about them, their cell phone and

the connection they have with their cell phone. The students completed the questionnaire in their

classes. The classes were chosen via random number chart.

As a result of collecting data and analyzing the findings, an answer to the research

question was verified. College students are experiencing components of the attachment theory to


their cell phone. Furthermore, college students are experiencing more than one component of the

attachment theory. This was determined with a select few questions in the questionnaire. The

questions that proved the hypothesis asked the participants: if they feel safe knowing they have

their phone with them, if they carry their phone with them at all times, and if they would

consider themselves to be attached to their phone. Over half of the participants agreed to each

one of these questions. More specifically, 80% said they carry their phone with them at all

times, 82% said they feel safe knowing they have their phone with them, and 52% would

consider themselves to be attached their phone. Through these results is obvious that the majority

of college students experience one or more of the attachment theory components specifically

proximity maintenance, safety haven, and secure base with their cell phone.


Chapter Two: Introduction to Study

Many do not like the idea of comparing human beings to animals, but the shocking reality

is that we have much more in common than one might think. Almost every creature in the

animal kingdom begins life under the guidance and care of their mother and/or father until they

are able to survive on their own and be self-sufficient. We as human beings are the exact same

way; we are born under the care of our parent(s) and are generally cared for until we learn the

necessary skills and maturity to stand on our own two feet and fend for ourselves with the rest of

society. During the years in which we are living under the wing of our parent(s), we

subconsciously realize that we have little chance of survival without our caregivers so we

develop a natural attachment to them.

Bowlby, was a British psychologist who took great interest in the attachment between

children and their caregivers that we all form during the early years of our childhood. Bowlby

was one of the main contributors in developing our current understanding of attachment theory.

According to Bowlby’s research, once we reach a certain age, our attachment towards our

parent(s) fade and we establish ourselves as self-sufficient and independent human beings. This

may have been the case many years ago, but what if there was another factor at play in our

cognitive development today that wasn’t an issue then? We all know that there are massive

technological differences present between every generation, but do we have technology today

that actually affects how self-sufficient we really are? We have reason to believe that such

technology is already residing in our pockets.

We’ve reached the point in today’s society that the vast majority of individuals possess a

mobile phone of some kind. The cell phone trend started off as a more convenient alternative to

the landline telephone, which was used strictly for phone calls. Later, phones featured the


emergence of the text message, which turned into a seemingly more frequent method of

communication between cell phone owners. It wasn’t long before the World Wide Web found

its way into our phones, allowing cell phone users to check their email, social networking sites,

global positioning systems, and any other site on the internet. As mobile phone technology

grows more and more advanced, the time spent using these devices is naturally going to increase

due to the enhanced possibilities available. With an increase of the number of operations that

can be performed on their cell phones, individuals will have fewer need for other media like

computers, GPS’s, and landline telephones. Some may see this centralization of devices into one

a positive matter of convenience. However, we see this ‘monopoly’ of technology as potentially

problematic. With all our needs being met in our cell phones, our dependence upon this small

instrument is greatly increased. In fact, we rely on our cell phones much like a child relies on

their mother and/or father. With that being said, could Bowlby’s Attachment Theory be applied

to people’s relationship with their cell phones?

To answer this question, we performed research at a small, Midwestern, private co-ed

liberal arts institution to answer the following research question:

What component(s) of attachment do college students experience with their cell phones?

At the foundation of our research, the hypothesis we formulized was as follows:

College students are experiencing at least one or more of the four attachment theory

components with their cell phones.

Given all of the newly-accessible options found in our cell phones, we find it very likely that our

results will illustrate that our relationship with our cell phones is psychologically deeper than it

has ever been and that students develop an attachment to their phones that is similar to the

parental attachment Bowlby formulated.


Chapter Three: Literature Review

Today, it is a known that almost every college student has a cell phone. Students talking

on and carrying cell phones are everywhere, and it appears that they are inseparable. In order to

understand this trend it is important to learn when cell phones came to existence. The longer cell

phones have been around would allow for a person to become more habituated with their phone.

Looking at the start from when phones originally became mobile it is noticeable that the

cell phone has definitely changed. The phones were bulky with antennas leading into the flip

phone era and now more recently, smartphones. Agar (2003) stated that when:

Cellular phones were first marketed they cost the equivalent of a small car—and you

needed the car to transport them since they were so bulky. But in 2002, global

subscriptions to cellular phone services passed one billion. In countries such as Iceland,

Finland, Italy and the UK over three-quarters of the population owned a phone, with

other counties in Western Europe, the Americas and the Pacific Rim not far behind. (p.

2)

The first phones were not used as home land lines but were built into cars. According to

Agar (2003):

Early practical mobile phones were carried by cars, since there was room in the trunk for

the bulky equipment, as well as a car battery. One of the most important factors

permitting phones that can be carried in pockets and bags has been remarkable advances

in battery technology. As batteries have become more powerful, so they have provided

more energy. Partly because improvements in battery design have been incremental,

their role in technological change is often underestimated. (p. 3)

These first mobile phones were limited to who they could be sold to, they were only for the


people who could afford them. Even if someone could afford one of the original mobile phones

they needed a car that had the capability to have one. If it wasn’t for the creation of smaller

more reasonably priced batteries the cell phone might possibly not be in existence today. Car

phones were only possible if the car was on because it would operate off the power of the car

battery (Agar, 2003).

Upon figuring out the technology behind making the batteries smaller to create a more

portable cell phone, a continuous compilation of styles and better phones continued to emerge.

After car phones, the next style of cell phone were the large, awkward, and bulky ones. These

required large antennas and were only capable of making calls to one person at a time with

terrible service. Eventually phones evolved into better machines, according to Reading (2008):

“Third and fourth generation technology provides for access to the global public memories of the

World Wide Web and for the circulation and distribution on a mobile basis of personal multi-

media memories” (p. 355-356). Having cell phones became such a trend and social status

symbol and once they started to have excessive capabilities besides just calling or texting, more

people continued to purchase one (Al-Bakri, Mat Kiah, A. Zaidan, B. Zaidan, Alam, 2011). Al-

Bakri, et al. (2011) stated, “Recently, mobile phones are not only used for casual greetings but

also, sending and receiving important data such as, social security numbers, bank accounts

details and passwords” (p. 1). When phones started to have Internet capabilities connected to

them, the smartphones became popular. Today, many teenagers in today’s society have

smartphones which allow them to look at what is happening on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube,

Instagram and other social networking sites. By having Internet on phones, it is easier to access

information and to perform tasks such as, sending videos from a phone directly to a designated


YouTube account by using a mobile email address or by logging into the mobile YouTube site

(Singh & Lal, 2012).

The current college generation has grown up in a technologically rich world, using

mobile phones, chat rooms, email, computer games, listening to music, watching TV and videos,

this is often simultaneously part of people’s regular social engagement. Even though current

college students did not necessarily grow up having a cell phone, they most likely had one in

high school. If a college student had a cell phone either before or during high school it would

have given them an appropriate amount of time to get well acquainted with cell phones. The

younger generations are beginning to use cell phones because they have them as young as grade

school (Hanson, Drumheller, Mallard, McKee, & Schlegel, 2011; McMahon & Pospisil, 2005).

The development of cell phones, however, were an important part of history, Al-Bakri et al.

(2011) stated:

Today, mobile phones are considered to be the most common communication devices in

history. The demand for such device is tremendous, as in, the second quarter of 2009,

there were more than 4.3 billion mobile subscribers worldwide compared to 3 billion

mobile subscribers in 2008 and 2.5 billion mobile subscribers in 2007. The majority of

them are sending and receiving SMS texts, or making calls, it is sometimes used to

exchange sensitive information between communicating parties. (p. 1)

In 2009 there were more than 4.3 billion cell phone users which is a large number. However,

many may ask why would people need a cell phone if they have landlines? According to Rosen

(2004):

Today, more people have cell phones than fixed telephone lines, both in the United States

and internationally. There are more than one billion cell phone users worldwide, and as


one wireless industry analyst recently told Slate, ‘sometime between 2010 and 2020,

everyone who wants and can afford a cell phone will have one.’ Americans spend, on

average, about seven hours a month talking on their cell phones. (p. 26)

Having fewer land telephone lines in 2012 might sound like an arbitrary idea considering the

dependence individuals had a land lines not long ago. However, this statistic makes sense when

looking at how many people have cell phones. Almost everyone who is old enough, even young

children, have their own phone and sometimes more than one. One can infer that it may not be

essential to have a land line anymore. Given the vast amount of individuals who have phone

services today, some people might believe that having two could be excessive. Having a land

line is an additional cost when people can just use their cell phones as their main phone lines.

This termination of land lines is an example of how technology is changing and how we

communicate at home and in social settings.

The current college generation has seen the jump from VHS tapes to Blu-Rays, full-size

desktop computers to iPads and tablets, and CD’s to vast music libraries full of MP3’s. One of

the most significant changes they have seen has been in the world of communication and the

integration of cellular phones into our society. In 2012 88% of Americans reported that they

owed a cell phone and 46% of those phones are smart phones (Gahran, 2012). This rapidly

growing piece of technology is quickly replacing older forms of communication including land

lines. It is clear that this technology shift is expanding at an exponential rate, but how exactly is

this transition affecting our everyday lifestyle? There is a never-ending feud between college

professors and the cellular phone usage in their classes. According to Jaschik (2008), Professor

Thomas of Syracuse University walked out of his class after catching a student texting. This

action sent a non-verbal message displaying disrespect. As many would imagine, this act of


protest acquired a lot of praise along with significant backlash. In the same instance a student

from Syracuse sent an email to the administration department that stated:

We the students are the customers, the consumers, the ones who make the choice every

day to pay attention or not. I pay approximately 30, 000 dollars to go here, whether I text

in class or not. Laurence Thomas gets paid whether his students text in class or not.

(Jaschik, 2008)

Although this statement made by a student has multiple factors involved and is definitely

controversial. It is quite certain that this student shares the same mindset as the one who did the

initial texting that triggered such an event. However, this student’s argument somewhat

collapses on himself: why would one waste their own time and money in class when they are

going to pay more attention to their cell phone?

According to Gurrie and Johnson (2011), “despite the number to students[91.9%] who

reported using cell phones in class, a large percentage of students (97.8 percent) selected ‘yes’

when asked if they considered eye contact to be an important part of respectful conversation” (p.

16). These students realize it’s disrespectful to not pay attention during class, yet they continue

to do it. According to Leung and Wei (2000), the cellular phone seems to offer an optimal

balance in the long-standing tradeoffs between freedom of movement and immediate access” (p.

316). In other words, they have access to things like social media, internet and email at all times

so they automatically feel the need to constantly be checking these things to stay connected if

they are on the move. Gurrie and Johnson (2011) found that cell phones and texting are a great

way for people to communicate without disrupting the scene, or conversely if the scene is too

disruptive and loud for other communication to take place (p. 13).

Although this may be true, but the mere fact that people feel as if they need to be


constantly connected speaks for itself. People today, particularly the youth, feel the constant

need to be connecting with their peers when they have the capability. When they do not have a

mobile device, they cannot stay connected like the majority of the people around them, which

causes them to feel lonely and isolated (Vincent 2006). The connection that people, specifically

students, have with their cell phones is beyond the confines of the definition of the word

‘connection.’ The step beyond being referred to is attachment. When people use cell phones

they are able to connect with virtually anyone anywhere. Cell phone users are not only

connected with people but to a nearly unending multiplicity of information. This is because

more people in the United States own smart phones rather than a simpler model without the

capability of wireless Internet (Gahran, 2012). Since people are able to contact individuals so

readily it is possible for an attachment to occur. As Snyder, Shapiro and Treleaven (2011)

summarize in their discussion of Bowlby’s (1988) theory of attachment, it is:

a psychological theory of human connection. Attachment theory suggests that (a) human

beings are wired to connect with one another emotionally, in intimate relationships; (b)

there is a powerful influence on children’s development by the way they are treated by

their parents, especially by their mothers; and (c) a theory of developmental pathways can

explain later tendencies in relationship based on such early experiences. Attachment

theory regards intimacy as a basic component of human nature, present in germinal form

from infancy onward. Human infants are hard-wired to develop a set of behavioral

patterns that, given the appropriate environment, will result in keeping close proximity to

those who provide care. (p. 710)

This suggests that a person has a desire to connect with other humans especially those who care

for the person. Originally, attachment theory research was performed in regard to a child’s


relationship with his/her parent, particularly his/her mother. But the question we are proposing is

whether or not this sense of security that children find with their mothers can be found in an

inanimate object such as their cell phone. If one considers young children, most of them find

security doing something they are uncomfortable with if their parent is there with them to relieve

some of the pressure. Moreover, according to Aucoin (2007) and Cox (2008), it is socially

acceptable to start or end a romantic relationship over a simple text message. Formally viewed

as a very nerve-wrecking process, a person can now take some of that pressure off them by

hiding behind the tiny screen of a cell phone. This seemingly very immature and irresponsible

act is just one of the many examples in which the current college generation hides behind their

cell phones in uncomfortable situations. A connection, via cell phone, can be made in seconds

allowing an attached being to communicate with someone or something with which they have

the attachment. At times people interact with their phone as if it were a person itself. According

to Vincent (2006):

We interact with a mobile phone in a way that we do not with other computational

devices—we fondle it, we clutch it in times of crisis ready to turn to it and dial for help or

solace, and we know that our loved ones are doing the same, probably at the same time.

(p. 42)

If one can interact with their cell phone on a regular basis, with loved ones they are attached to,

is it possible for them to be attached to the phone?

There are four main components of attachment that people can experience (Main, Hesse

& Hesse, 2011). The first of the components to discuss is haven of safety or safe haven which is

important to make a person not to be fearful and to feel comfortable and welcomed into an

environment.


This meant that it was not possible to establish a fixed location for protection of the

young, such as a burrow or den. Thus, in contrast to most mammals, for whom a special

place provides the haven of safety, for both human and primate infants the attachment

figure is the single location that must be sought under conditions of alarm. Bowlby

further proposed that the infant’s focus upon the attachment figure has been rendered all

the more emotional and insistent because—again, due to our semi-nomadic ancestry—

attachment is inevitably closely intertwined with fear. (Main et al., 2011, p. 431)

It is obvious that a cell phone is not a den or a physical shelter safe haven. However, it is

possible for a person to contact someone from home or a preferred safe haven to feasibly remove

an instilled fear. Safe haven is followed by three additional components.

The next component of Bowlby’s is the concept of a secure base existing for an

individual to belong. Bennett and Saks (2006) explain Bowlby’s (1969/1982, 1988) secure base

component by stating the idea is:

that the human infant has an inborn biological need for proximity to a caregiver in order

to feel protected, particularly in moments of danger and distress. It is this innate need for

protection that serves as the impetus for an attachment to a primary caregiver as a ‘secure

base’ for the child. Bowlby recognized that the child's attachment system and

exploratory system are intricately connected—exploration of the world occurs when the

child feels a sense of security and support; when frightened, the child returns to the safe

haven of the attachment figure for soothing and comfort. (p. 670)

It is recognized that both a secure base and safe haven are established at a young age among

humans. If a secure base cannot be established a person loses the sense of security and

disconnect can occur within the world around them. It is possible to eliminate disconnect from


people with a cell phone, according to Vincent (2006):

Each mobile phone is uniquely reflecting the users life at that point in time; so the device

‘holds’ the memories, the sentiments that are associated with the text messages and

numbers stored on the phone, the appointments, the ringtones chosen and the pictures

held on the phone and not in the wallet and so on… …However, arguably none of this

would be happening were it not for the second point, that people’s attachment to their

mobile phone is not the result of a solitary pre-occupation with the device but rather it is

relationships with others that provide the stimuli for people’s attachment to their mobile

phone. (p. 41-42)

Cell phones can potentially allow for one to re-establish the sense of security by contacting their

base or seeing via wireless access/photographs the person or people that comfort them and

provide a secure feeling in their life. This leads to another one of Bowlby’s components.

Proximity maintenance is the next one of Bowlby’s components of attachment theory to

be discussed. Main et al. (2011) found that, “Attachment is a species-wide behavior pattern in

humans which Bowlby suggested had originally served to protect the young from predation and

other dangers via maintenance of proximity to a protective older individual” (p. 431). When a

person is closer to an older protective individual they feel safe to from danger. People want to be

near the individual to keep them feeling safe and a cell phone has the potential to quickly

connect one person to the other that proximity maintenance is established. After proximity

maintenance one more component exists.

The final component in Bowlby’s theory of attachment is separation distress. Main et al.

(2011) describe separation distress as the following:

In adolescence and in adulthood new attachments are formed with friends and romantic


partners, and have the same properties of both desire for proximity, and distress at

separation, although these emotions are ordinarily experienced and displayed with less

urgency. At these older ages, Bowlby’s broad definition of attachment figures (while

seeming to refer especially to secure attachments) includes individuals who are conceived

of as ‘stronger and wiser,’ and sought in times of stress for advice and comfort. In well-

functioning attachment relationships between adults, the role of the ‘stronger and wiser’

individual is (unlike the child-adult attachment relationship) interchangeable as

circumstances require. (p. 438)

If proximity maintenance does not exist, then distress upon the separation of the attached person

will occur. However, if the person is separated from the one that makes them feel safe and secure

a phone will allow them to contact that person. Thus, that individual will potentially be able to

evade distress. If someone is separated from something and someone that makes them feel

comfortable complications can arise. According to Main et al. (2011), “Separations from these

selected ‘attachment figures’ in unfamiliar or otherwise threatening environments is; therefore,

expected to arouse distress, anxiety, or fear” (p. 437). A phone can bridge the gap of separation

and without the phone to be there to bridge that gap people can feel very uncomfortable. Vincent

(2006), reported the following:

The aforementioned research showed that people talk to people they already know and, as

explained earlier, that they talk about their mobile in emotional terms, ‘We often have a

panic situation when the battery runs down’ or ‘I’d feel really, really lost without my

phone now.’ People are also using them to make changes to arrangements or simply set

up meetings, business or social, at the last minute. ‘Ring me to say where you are and I’ll

meet you there.’ The mobile phone is thus an important part of our emotional cache in


that it is a repository for storing links to things that engender emotional response, as well

as performing a functional role in the management of day-to-day life. (p. 42)

If people are without their phones, it is possible that one of the components of the attachment

theory can occur. However, components of the attachment theory are not the only things people

can experience with their phone.

Recent research shows that people feel anxious and tense when they are without their

phone. This is known as 88phobia which stands for no mobile phone phobia (Kung, 2012).

Approximately two thirds of people and 77% of the people between ages 18-24 who participated

in the study are experiencing nomophobia which is an 11% rise compared to the results four

years previously (Kung, 2012). The young population is more at risk to experiencing this phobia

because they are more likely to have smart phones and smart phones have easy internet access

(Kung, 2012). While the major drivers of nomophobia are boredom, loneliness, and insecurity

the research shows that women are more likely to experience nomophobia than men (Kung,

2012). People often hold onto their phone at all times even carrying it while they sleep. A lot of

the information here can be related to the components of the attachment theory.

Human beings live very complex lifestyles with many stresses encountered on an

everyday basis. A device that takes away some of these stresses isn’t such a bad thing, right?

That may be if the time used on our cell phones were limited to scenarios such as where it is

necessary. The Pew Internet & American Life Project (2008) discovered that “52% of all

American cell phone owners report keeping their phones on at all time, and 81% of users who

only own a cell (and not a landline) always keep their phones turned on.” Another study of the

Pew Internet & American Life Project (2006) revealed that “of Americans aged from 18-29, 31%

reported feeling like they have to answer their cell phones even when it interrupts a meal or a


meeting.” Evidently, people these days are not willing to turn off their phones and temporarily

cut off that connectedness. People believe their cell phone is a priority. These individuals often

put events that are otherwise more important on hold in order to continue to stay connected on

their cell phone.

In the last decade, technology has clearly changed society. Cell phones have become an

object of necessity. According to Beaver, Knox, and Zusman (2010), “Cell phones are as

common as Starbucks before the recession” (p. 1). A person not chatting on their cellphones on a

college campus is almost non-existent, since it seems to be a common trend (Beaver et al., 2010).

Cell phones have become a part of everyday life and people have begun to depend on them in

ways that are both beneficial and inconvenient. According to Pettigrew (2009), “ Mobile

telephones are impacting societies around the world, intuitively mobile communication extends

users’ ability to communicate, especially while accomplishing other tasks like riding in public

transit, walking to a classroom, or sitting at the café” (p. 697). People are able to become more

mobile and can continue to communicate while performing other tasks outside their home.

However, cellphones can cause an unusual sense of anxiety and dependence. According to

Walsh and White (2010), “An additional consideration is that many people check their mobile

phone regularly for missed messages or calls and keep their phone in close proximity without

actually using their phone” (p. 4). Individuals rely on one another to carry their phones at all

hours throughout the day. Cell phones are interrupting important times, where before this was

not an issue. Young Americans feel they have to answer their cellphones even if it interrupts

something important (Miller-Oat, Kelly & Duran, 2007). Cell phones create an unnecessary

distraction in public. Rosen’s (2004) study stated:

The Zagat restaurant guide reports that cell phone rudeness is now the number one


complaint of diners, and USA Today notes a similar statement, that “fifty-nine percent of

people would rather visit the dentist than sit next to someone using a cell phone. (p. 35)

With the changes in technology, it is hard for people to conceptualize the way they should

distinguish the relationships on their phones between personal conversations (Rosen, 2004).

According to Rosen (2004), “Wireless technology is booming so quickly and wireless phones

have become so popular, the rules on wireless etiquette are still evolving” (p. 37). Since

technology is moving so quickly it is hard for people to know the proper use of cell phones.

Rosen (2004) continued by discussing how Cingular wireless launched a campaign that played in

the movie theater about an “inconsiderate cell phone guy” (p. 36). This showed the public how

inconsiderate it is to be on your phones at certain times. The Cingular ad showed: “A parody of

bad behavior that shows a man talking loudly into his cell phone at inappropriate times: during a

date, in a movie, at a wedding, in the middle of a group therapy session” (Rosen, 2004, p. 36). It

is shown that people do not pay attention to their surroundings, whether it is in the store, the gym

or basically anywhere; while they are on their cell phones ( Rosen, 2004). The only device that

seems to concern them is their cell phone rather than what surrounds them (Rosen, 2004).

Cellphones have affected social communication and relationships. The invention of

texting has strongly influenced the way people communicate. Texting is a form of email; people

can send it to another person at any given time. According to Pettigrew (2009), “Mobile phone

texters are in ‘perpetual contact’ and are virtually accessible at any given time, however,

accessibility seemingly diminishes freedom” (p. 699). The changes in technology have put more

pressure on people to always be available. In the past, a person’s day ended when they left work;

now more and more people are bringing their work home with them (Beaver et al. 2010). With

instant communication being so easy and instant it is hard to get away from it. Through their


research Beaver et al. (2010) stated:

The researchers noted that cell phones have blurred the boundary between work and

family in that parents/spouses are often distracted by cellphones which interfere with

their role performance. They referred to this as “role boundary permeability “whereby

one is physically present but psychologically or behaviorally involved in another role or

focus. For example, the spouse will be at home at the dinner table but be talking on the

cellphone. (p. 2)

In romantic relationships cell phones can help couples communicate. However, the

mobile phone can also create unnecessary tension. According to Duran, Kelly and Rotaru (2011),

“The couple may experience conflict about the frequent or timing of calls and texts or the lack of

responsiveness to them and may employ strategies to manage these conflicts” (p.23). Cell phones

do make it easier to reach a significant other or spouse, but on the contrary they can also cause

tension in the relationship. According to Miller-Oat et al., (2012), “Problems may arise when the

cell phone is used inappropriately - for instance, as a way to ‘keep tabs’ on partners” (p. 18).

The research that Duran et al. (2011) conducted states that:

The perpetual contact capability of cell phones potentially strains relationships, creating

too much connection at the expense of autonomy. For example, in discussing how parents

feel a sense of control over their young teen because the teen has a cellphone, Ling

stressed the mobile phone’s ability to connect to people by referring to it as ‘a type of

umbilical cord between parent and child.’ Baron also noted the mobile phone’s ability to

“tether” individuals. Perhaps young adults, although enthusiastic about mobile phones

find that their phones tie them too tightly to their romantic partners. (p.21)

However, at times, cell phones have helped relationships succeed because couples are


able to talk more often and openly. Miller-Oat et al., (2012) wrote “It is likely that romantic

couples have become dependent on cell phones to maintain their relationships” (p. 19). Using

cell phones in relationships to communicate might make things more convenient but it

potentially can lead to troubles when determining what is suitable to communicate.

It has been understood in studies, that there is a rule of what is acceptable and

unacceptable to communicate (Miller-Oat et al., 2012). Cell phones have made it easy for people

to communicate. Miller-Oat et al., (2012) stated:

Yates and Lockley (2007) reported that the cell phone is considered by young adults to be

essential to the maintenance of their social networks. Katz’s stated: ‘In my interviews I

frequently hear people say, with hyperbole, that if they lost their mobile phone they

would die.’ (p. 19)

Cell phones have become a convenience for people, that one can contact others whenever it is

necessary. Devitt and Roker (2008) stated, “Parents and young people saw mobile phones as an

essential feature of modern life - for convenience, for safety, for managing family life and social

lives” (p. 201). Cell phones have created both positive and negative attributes. Mobile

communication allows individuals to easily to build relationships, strengthen existing ones, and

sustain with current relationships (Jin & Pena, 2010). In a study by Aoki and Downes (2003)

observed, they interviewed college students and one stated, “Though a cellphone is a great tool

to stay in touch with friends, several participants also noted the negative aspect of staying in

touch all the time. As one student said, ‘you feel like it (cell phone) is a leash’” (p. 355). Aoki

and Downes (2003) found that another student from the same study stated:

Yeah, it’s a pain in the butt. Because before you had the cell phone you could have

excuses to get away from people. You could say, ‘Oh, I wasn’t home’ or whatever. And


now, they know that you’re ignoring them because you have that voice-mail. And if they

get forwarded straight to voice-mail, they know that you are denying their call and

they’re not happy. There’s no way you can get away from it (cell phone) and just have

quiet time (p. 355).

This is why people are expected to be on or near their cell phones at all times. Society has

created a world where people are so intrigued with cell phones. This results in individuals

becoming distracted from surroundings. People need to have their phones at all times.

With this need to be around ones cell phone comes a plethora of pros and cons. Being

attached to one’s cell phone can be beneficial in everyday life in many different social settings.

These include school and work settings, emergencies, multi-tasking, and staying connected to

peers and society. On the other hand, there are cons in these social settings as well, including the

distraction and dependency as major factors.

Furthermore, there are cons to be discussed when evaluating whether an individual is

attached to his/her cell phone. When looking into the school setting cell phones are usually

unwelcomed. Faculty often regard the use of cell phones by students at schools as a deterrent to

a student’s learning (Johnson & Kritsonis, 2007). Overall, they are seen as a distraction in the

classroom. As of 2012, cell phones have been banned in 69% of todays’ classrooms (Thomas &

McGee, 2012). Administrators hoped that banning cell phones in school would omit the misuse

which includes cheating, negative effect of textese, and cyber bullying. Textese is a term used to

describe the abbreviated language and slang when sending text messages (Thomas & McGee,

2012). Textese can be perceived by parents and administrators as destroying the English

language and a student’s ability to write. A student may carry over textese in a paper, using such

abbreviations as “u,” “wut,” and “bcuz.” Another negative use is using ones cell phone to cheat.


A recent study conducted by Commonsense Media in 2010 found that one-third of high school

students admitted using their cell phones to cheat (Thomas & McGee, 2012). Most students own

smart phones and have easy access to the Internet. Just about every cell phone now comes

equipped with cameras. The use of snapping pictures of exams and sending them to peers is

another way the phone is used to cheat. Additionally, cyberbullying has become an issue among

young adults. Having easy access to one’s cell phone allows them to stay connected to their

peers through, texting, social networks, and emailing. Moreover, it has been found by the Pew

Internet and American Life Project (2006) that 26% of teens have been harassed through their

mobile phones either by calls or text messages (Thomas & McGee, 2012). When pertaining to

bullying it was found that “Cyberbullying is easier than actual face to face bullying, which can

be more harmful because the bully doesn’t not have to be physically present while the person is

being bullied” (Thomas & McGee, 2012). While constantly being attached to one’s cell phone

this helps one reach multiple peers with the bullying offense. Maybe if students weren’t so

attached to their phones, these cons in the school setting wouldn’t be an issue, but overall, the

cell phone is seen as a major distraction in the classroom environment.

Conversely, the use of cell phones in a school setting can be beneficial. The smartphones

allow email accounts to be linked to one’s phone and this gives a student readily access to

important school information all the time. Cell phone portability, online access, and device

applications could allow and encourage students to enhance learning opportunities and group

collaboration (Chen, &Wang, 2008). For example, if a group is trying to meet or send

information, being attached to one’s phone will give you the opportunity to communicate with

one’s group easily rather than occasionally opening their laptop to check emails. Cell phones

also provide interaction and communication with teachers and peers which promotes a more


active and continuous learning environment, provides feedback and increases student motivation

(Thomas & McGee, 2012). In remote areas, connections to the Internet via cell phone are easier

to access than connections via computer (Shinn, 2009). In these cases, cell phones are less

expensive, costs of continually repairing and upgrading computer technology exceeds the cost of

cell phone communication which causes cell phones to be more appealing. Parents

characteristically agree with school policy. They want their children to abide by the rules but

regarding school emergencies or schedule changes. Parents often demand immediate

communication with their child, which cell phones can provide (Johnson & Kristonsis, 2007).

One major reason parents want their children to have access to their cell phone at school would

be in emergency situations. For instance, colleges and universities send out safety alerts when

there are issues. This definitely is a pro to being attached to your cell phone because if someone

was actually to be in danger the use of cell phones can save one’s life especially in cases of

school shootings, bombings, terrorizing, and just emergencies in general.

Furthermore, cell phones can become lifesavers in those emergency situations. People

are faced with everyday emergencies, where a cell phone can be used to call for help. Rosen

(2004) stated:

More than ninety percent of cell phone users also report that owning a cell phone makes

them feel safer. The CTIA (Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association) noted

that in 2001, nearly 156,000 wireless emergency service calls were made every day—

about 108 calls per minute. Technological Good Samaritans place calls to emergency

personnel when they see traffic accidents or crimes-in-progress; individuals use their cell

phones to call for assistance when a car breaks down or plans go away. (p. 3)

Specifically, one major emergency that is famously known is that Attacks on September 11th,


people stuck in the towers and planes used their cell phones to call for help and speak last words

to their loved ones. According to Rosen (2004) many people who had never considered owning

a cell phone bought one after the horrific incidents that occurred September 11th. With the

attachment of cell phones comes with the comfort of feeling safe relating to one of Bowlby’s

attachment components. The perceived need for a technological safety device can encourage

irrational behavior and create new anxieties. Rosen (2004) stated:

Recently, when a professor at Rutgers University asked his students to experiment with

turning off their cell phones for 48 hours, one young woman told University Wire, ‘I felt

like I was going to get raped if I didn’t have my cell phone in my hand. I carry it in case

I need to call someone for help.’ Popular culture endorses this image of cell-phone-as-

life-line. (p. 4)

Cell phones have been used to help in emergency situations, but they also hide individual’s

insecurities of feeling unsafe or threatened. Parents give their children cell phones so they can

check in and reassure that they are safe.

In this era, most cell phone companies are releasing more smart phones than just the

typical call and text service. A positive attribute to having a smartphone is that it keeps one

connected with the outside world. Certain applications allow an individual to never have to

access a computer to accomplish such tasks such as emailing, Facebooking, and Tweeting. With

a smart phone comes the use of email. Many use this feature to accomplish work and school

tasks. Cell phone owners are already using applications on their mobile devices (texting,

Internet, camera, video, and audio recorders, and music players) that have classroom related

material, and the number of individuals who own a cell phone is increasing dramatically. In the

time period between 2004 and 2009 the number of adults who own a cell phone increased by 20


percent. In the same time frame the amount of teens who own a cell phone increases by 40

percent (Lenhart, 2009). Texting allows an instant communication with individuals who are

located down the street or half way across the country. It was found that 85% of 12-17 year olds

and 95% of adults age 19-29 who own a cell phone use it to send or receive text messages

(Lenhart, 2009).

Overall, cell phones are very important in today’s society. In the past they started out

with little capabilities. Now, a cell phone seems to have an endless potential. Individuals seem

to need their cell phones in everyday life. More individuals are becoming cell phone owners.

Some individuals can potentially experience components of attachment with their phone. As

previously stated the components that an individual can potentially experience with their phone

include a secure base, safety haven, proximity maintenance, and distress upon separation of the

attachment. If someone is experiencing one or more of these attachment components with their

phone they are considered to be experiencing attachment.


Chapter Four: Discussion of the Methods

On August 27, 2012 a class at a small private Catholic college in the Midwest was

introduced to a research project. Within a week of being introduced to the project, five

researchers were assigned a group to collaborate together on the research project. On the same

day of being assigned a group the researchers debated a few topics that could be investigated.

There was little discussion until a consensus was reached about a topic. The researchers decided

that they would study something relating to cell phones. The idea of researching an addiction to

cell phones was discussed. However, addiction seemed too intense. The researchers decided

that participants in the study might not easily admit to being addicted to their phone. Eventually,

the researchers determined that looking at attachment to cell phones could be applicable to this

topic. There was prior research determining an attachment theory

Bowlby developed an attachment theory with four components. The attachment

components include proximity maintenance where the attached person wants to be near to the

attachment. A haven of safety is next which is when they feel comfort and safe to be around the

attachment. Then, a secure base is when a person finds security within the attachment. Finally,

separation distress when anxiety takes place because the person is away from the attachment

(Main et al., 2011; Vincent, 2006). Based on this research the group decided the topic would be

attachment theory and the usage of cell phones. The researchers then wrote the research question

and the hypothesis. The research question was: What component(s) of attachment do college

students experience with their cell phones? The hypothesis was: College students are

experiencing at least one or more of the four attachment theory components with their cell

phones. After these were established the researchers knew where to begin research individually.

Each one of the five researchers individually found sources. However, the sources were not all

completely relevant. It was difficult to find more than the 25 required sources. A


librarian/researcher whose job is to help the students at the small private Catholic college in the

Midwest with research aided the class with useful strategies. Ebscohost.com (the online

database) provided to be the most useful research tool. At this point references were found

without problems. The next week, still in need of multiple sources, the researchers met with the

same librarian/researcher that came to their class. The librarian gave many useful strategies and

a lot of insight to find more topic related sources. The researchers then composed an outline to

write a literature review. The outline was divided up into several areas to cover the history of

cell phones, statistics about people who owned cell phones, attachment theory, any previous

research about people being attached to their cell phones, and how people use their cell phones.

Each one of the researchers wrote about specific portions of the topic and then an editor put all of

the portions together in a corresponding order. The editor then edited the literature review to

make sure transitions made the paper flow and that various parts came together. Furthermore,

the editor made sure that punctuation, grammar, along with correct APA style was accurate

throughout the literature review. Upon the completion of this all of the researchers formed a

reference page with all of the sources they used to write their portion of the paper. The editor

compiled a reference page with all of the sources in alphabetical order. Upon the completion of

both the literature review and references, the editor realized that the original research question

and hypothesis discussed levels of attachment. In Bowlby’s attachment theory there are not

levels but components. Furthermore, both the research question and hypothesis were changed to

the way they are previously mentioned. Shortly after the literature review was turned in to the

instructor of the class at the small private catholic college in the Midwest, it was returned with

corrections. Then the editor continued to edit the literature review with the edits that the

instructor made. Later the instructor distributed the institutional review board form (Appendix


A) for the small private catholic college in the Midwest. The form was filled out to the point that

the researchers have completed. The institutional review board form was halted until the rest of

the form could be completed. The next step was to begin the process of writing questions for a

questionnaire that would be distributed to 150 participants. A questionnaire with a cover letter

was written with 25 questions (Appendix B). The questionnaire included directions on how it

was to be completed and a definition of attachment for the purpose of the study. The first

question was to understand the gender of the participants. Next, the age and year in school were

asked of the participant. The questionnaire continued to ask questions pertaining to the

participant’s cell phone, the usage of it, and the attachment the participant might have to their

phone. For example the researchers asked the participants yes or no questions if their phone had

Internet and if it was considered a smart phone. The questionnaire also included questions using

the Likert scale whether they strongly agree, agree, N/A disagree, or strongly disagree. These

questions asked about phone usage including whether they like using their phone to talk to loved

ones, friends, of significant others, or to get out of an awkward situation such as an elevator ride

with a stranger. The questionnaire continued to ask the participants how many hours they are on

their phone on a typical day. The final question asked the participants if they would consider

themselves to be attached to their phone. The questionnaire was looked over by the instructor of

the research class and some of the questions and format was edited before they were distributed.

Once the questionnaire was edited, 175 copies were made which cost the researchers a total of

$50 dollars. In order to determine which classes questionnaires would be distributed, a fall 2012

class schedule from the small private catholic college in the Midwest (Appendix C) was used.

The researchers printed out the class schedule and highlighted all courses, each in a different

color, grade specific in order to obtain a balanced amount of first year, sophomore, junior, and


senior students. Furthermore, the classes were numbered in each grade group. The first number

for each grade was 01 and continued through the grade by each class as 02, 03, 04, 05, and

continued until the last class. After all the classes were highlighted and numbered, 40 students

for each grade were needed to have a balanced selection of participants. This means that

approximately 2-3 classes would be chosen to take the questionnaire for each grade. Most of the

classes in the fall 2012 course schedule have 20-25 students in each class. However, this is not

the case for all of the classes. A random chart (Appendix D) was used to determine the classes

that would complete questionnaires. Each one of the numbers on the random number chart was

four digits. Furthermore, since the numbering of classes never reached over two digits the

numbers on the chart were used as two separate numbers. Each number was split: the first two

digits were one number and the second two were used as another. When using the random

number chart the researchers started at a random number and continued down from that number.

When choosing classes with the random number chart the class would be chosen by

corresponding class number and chart number. For example if the chart number read 2303 the

first choice would be the class numbered 23 previously and the second class choses would be 03.

If the number was 9904 there might not be a number 99 class so the next choice would be 04.

Once classes were chosen to represent enough participants from each grade the professors of the

classes were emailed to ask if they would allow researchers to distribute questionnaires to their

class. If professors did not respond another class would be chosen in the same fashion as they

were before. Professors responded allowing the researchers to attend their class to distribute

questionnaires to participants. The researchers then responded to the professors confirming that

they would come to their class. Before questionnaires were distributed to participants in each

class a very brief explanation of the study was mentioned to the participants along with asking


that they read all of the directions including the cover letter so they would understand that their

answers would be completely anonymous. Every class was thanked both verbally and within the

questionnaire for their participation. After over 150 (precisely 158) questionnaires were

completed all of the cover pages were torn off and kept separately so all responses were

anonymous. Every questionnaire was then numbered in the top right corner so that when

entering the responses into PSAW it would be known which responses have been entered. The

questionnaire was then coded (Appendix E). Each question 1-25 was labeled with a letter

because if they were numbers it would interfere with the tests. For example question 1 was A

question 2 was B question 3 was C and this same pattern continued to the last question. Each

one of the responses for each question had a code for example 1 was for male (1-Male) 2 was for

female (2-female), 1 was for yes (1-yes) 2 was for no (2-no), and for the Likert scale 1-strongley

agree, 2-agree, 3-N/A, 4-disagree, 5-strongly disagree. After the questionnaire was coded the

coded data was entered into PSAW. Frequency tests were ran for each one of the questions and

explanations were written for each one of the frequency tests. Correlations cross tabulation tests

between some of the frequencies were also ran and explained. During the same time as some of

the data being entered the institutional review board form was completed and edited. While the

frequency tests were being ran another researcher wrote the introduction and edited it later that

week. After concluding the analysis of results section, and understanding all of the frequencies

and cross tabulations, the rest of the chapters of the project were written. Then the limitations

chapter of the study was written describing what issues the researchers might have come across

while doing the project. The completion of the limitations section allowed for the

recommendations for further study chapter to be written. Having the data figured and

understood allowed for the researchers to then complete the summary which included a summary


of the data and what it meant toward the entire research project. Both the abstract and

conclusion were written shortly after the summary. This chapter, discussion of the methods, was

one of the first to be started but was added to as each chapter and process of the research was

completed. After everything was edited and formatted to APA style the chapters were placed in

the following order: abstract, introduction to the study, literature review, discussion of the

methods, analysis of the results, summary, limitations of the study, recommendations for further

study, conclusion, references, and appendices. Finally, the project was assembled and bound

into book form.


Chapter Five: Analysis of the results


According the results of question one (shown in the above graph), there were 89 male

participants and 69 female participants. This illustrates a 20 participant difference between

genders participating in this research study. We found this question of nominal data significant

in the research because it quickly established that the study reflects the gender of our sample

proportionately.


According to the results of question two (shown in the above graph), the current year in

college of participants was moderately unbalanced. Our results yielded 43 first-year students

participants, 26 sophomore participants, 34 junior participants, and 55 senior participants. The

first-year student and junior student results came back approximately how we estimated they

would upon organizing which classes were selected for our study. However, the senior student

results came back in greater amount than we expected, thus taking away some of the sophomore

student sample quantity. Despite this slight imbalance in results, we believe the results still

appropriately represent the population.


According to the results of question three (shown in the above graph), the vast majority

of participants chose answer “3” (Age 14-16), coming in at 94 participants and 60% of total

respondents. The next greatest amount was answer “2” (Age 11-13), which was a mere 45

responses and 29% of total respondents. From there, answer “4” (Age 17-19) received 16

responses, answer “1” (Age 8-10) received 2 responses, and answer “5” (Age 23+). Answer “G”

(N/A) was not selected, as expected, reflecting that all participants in the study were cell phone

owners. The large percentage of participants choosing answer “3” illustrates that a large

percentage of students got their first cell phone during the early years of their high school

careers. We find this significant because this is approximately the age that youth in our nation

tend to make attempts to break away from their parent/guardian and be independent. We believe

it is no coincidence that many are first introduced to their first cell phone around this time. If

this attachment to the cell phone exists, the timing would be perfect for the individual to transfer

their dependence from their parent/guardian to their mobile phone.


According to the results of question four (shown in the above graph), the two greatest

amount of answers selected were answer “1” (Strongly Agree) at 54 responses and answer “2”

(Agree) at 65 responses, bringing the combined total to 119 responses and 75% of all

respondents. 22 participants chose answer “4” (Disagree) and only 3 participants chose answer

“5” (Strongly Disagree). Answer “3” (N/A) was unfortunately selected by 14 participants, which

in hindsight should not have been an answer option (see Limitations of Study for further

discussion). Although the extremity varied in their responses, the majority of participants would

find it odd for people in today’s society to not possess a cell phone. This is significant because it

illustrates that the mobile phone is a norm in our culture that receives negative association by

others if an individual does not meet the expectation in this case, ownership of a cell phone.


According to the results of question five (shown in the above graph), the vast majority of

participants said they carry their phone with them at all times. 79.7% of participants chose

answer “1” (Yes), while the other 20.3% chose answer “2” (No). The pie chart shows us that

people want to have their phone with them at all times, an outward and apparent sign of

attachment. This lack of separation displays that the majority of our participants do not express a

desire to part with their phones and choose to keep it available for their convenience of use.


According to the results of question six (shown in the above graph), we found that most

participants use the Internet multiple times a day. 26.6% of participants chose answer “1”

(Strongly agree) and 34.2% chose answer “2” (Agree), thus a total 60.8% of total participants

agreeing they use the Internet multiple times a day. This leaves the remaining 38.6% of

participants to choose either answer “3” (N/A), “4” (Disagree) and “5” (Strongly Agree). This

illustrates that people are using their phones for more than just the basics, but they are using

them to meet their Internet needs as well. As discussed in the Introduction to Study, this

convergence of devices increases time spent on their cell phones and decreases time spent on

others. With this “monopoly” of devices present, they have much more invested on their mobile

phones which causes their dependence on them to increase substantially.


According to the results of question seven (shown in the above graph), the most chosen

response by participants was answer “4” (Disagree) at 40 responses. Interestingly enough, the

next greatest amount was found in answer” 2” (Agree) at a close 37 participants. Answer “5”

(Strongly Disagree) followed very closely with 34 responses, while answer “1” (Strongly Agree)

received 24 responses. Answer “3” (N/A) was made available for those who currently do not

possess a phone with Internet and was selected by 23 participants. We cannot derive much from

these results due to the lack of weight leaning to either direction of the Likert scale. One fact

that should be noted is that answer “3” (N/A) was the least chosen response, illustrating that the

participants without access to the Internet on their phone were in the minority at 15% of the

sample. The other 85% expressed general indecision as far as their feelings towards going back

to a phone without Internet, which does not give us concrete data to make accurate connections.


According to the results of question eight (shown in the above graph), 70% of

respondents reported having a smart phone (a device that combines a phone with the capabilities

of a handheld computer, typically offering Internet access, data storage, e-mail capabilities,

applications, etc.). This adds up to 111 of participants choosing answer ‘1’ (Yes) and 46

participants responding with answer ‘2’ (No). This high percentage displays that the majority of

participants possess cell phones that do more than the average texting and calling, which

increases the likelihood that they have much more invested in their phones than those who do not

possess these high-tech devices.


According to the results of question nine (shown in the above graph), we found that the

majority of participants agreed they use their cell phone to avoid awkward situations. 29.7% of

participants chose answer “1” (Strongly Agree) and 39.2% chose answer “2” (Agree).

Combining these two options brings us to a total of 68.9% of participants declaring that they turn

to their cell phones at some point to avoid awkward and uncomfortable situations. One of the

components of Bowlby’s (1988) attachment theory mentions that young, attached children use

their parent(s) to ease their anxiety in situations which they find troublesome. The parent(s) act

as a third party to take away some of the responsibility to force encounters with strange

situations. This can be applied through the majority of respondents admitting that they turn to

their cell phone to lessen their discomfort in commonly perceived awkward situations, such as

the scenario of standing in an elevator with a complete stranger.


According to the results of question ten (shown in the above graph), participants did not

show a clear consensus. The most chosen response was answer ‘4’ (Disagree) with 61

participants, while the second-most chosen response was answer ‘2’ (Agree) on the flipside with

50 participants. Total percentages in agreement added up to 38%, while there was a total of 49%

in general disagreement. From these results, it is difficult to accurately state the presence of

another component of Bowlby’s (1988) attachment theory, which suggests that children gain

separation anxiety from being distanced from their parent(s)/guardian(s). Despite the fact that

the majority indicated they do not reflect this connection, a large percentage seems to display this

component nevertheless and express discomfort and uneasiness when they are separated from

their cell phones.


According to the results of question eleven (shown in the above graph), the most chosen

response was answer ‘4’ (Disagree) with 59 participants. The second most chosen answer was

‘2’ (Agree) at 40 responses, which was followed closely by answer ‘5’ (Strongly Disagree),

chosen by 38 participants. Answer “1” (Strongly Agree) was chosen by 14 participants, while

answer “3” (N/A) was chosen by 6; again, this answer proves irrelevant being that everyone has

indicated that they possess a cell phone and, therefore, either do or do not turn off their phone at

some point. With a total of 61% either choosing “Strongly Agree” or “Agree”, it illustrates that

the majority of participants are unwilling to detach themselves from their phones at all during

some point of the day. They feel the need to stay connected throughout their entire day.


According to the results of question 12 (shown in the above graph), the majority of

participants said they would rather text than call someone. 44% of participants strongly agreed or

agreed with saying they would rather text than call someone where 38% said they disagree or

strongly disagree, with the remaining participants, 18% answering N/A. Here we can see that our

participants would rather text than call someone.


According to the results of question thirteen (shown in the above graph), the most

selected answer by participants was answer ‘2’ (Agree), declaring they use their cell phone for

more than texting and calling. 24.7% of participants chose answer ‘1’ (Strongly Agree) and

46.2% of participants chose “Agree”, with that making up 70.9% of our total responses. 24.7%

of participants chose either answer ‘4’ (Disagree) or answer ‘5’ (Strongly Disagree). With

70.9% of people declaring they use their phone for more than texting and calling, we can infer

that not only do people use their phone to connect to people, which was the cell phone’s original

intent, but they use it for other things. This illustrates that the majority of our participants see

their phones as a channel for more than interpersonal communication; this display of multiple

uses shows a greater dependence on the phones by our sample.


According to the results of question fourteen (shown in the above graph), participants

admitted that there are times that they should not text but do so argue of. With 17.7% of

participants choosing ‘1’ (Strongly Agree) and a grand 46.8% choosing ‘2’ (Agree), 64.5% of

participants show general agreement this issue. 29.7% chose either answer ‘4’ (Strongly

Disagree) or answer ‘5’ (Disagree). With these results in consideration, we see that people know

they should not be on their phones in certain circumstances such as class, work, or dinner, yet

they are attached to the extent that they cannot separate themselves for the duration of these

events and continue to find the need to stay connected on their phones.


According to the results of question fifteen (shown in the above graph), the vast majority

of participants declared they like using their phone to contact family, significant others, and

friends. 58.9% of participants chose answer ‘1’ (Strongly Agree) and 39.2% selected answer ‘2’

(Agree), with that making up a total of 98.1% of responses. With those heavily weighted results,

we see that people use their phone to get in contact with other people, staying true to the cell

phone’s original intent. However, with the contact of family and friends at stake when

considering the participants’ relationship with their phones, this places a greater dependence

upon the devices.


According to the results of question sixteen (shown in the above graph), the most chosen

response was answer “4” (Disagree) with 68 participants. The second chosen answer was “2”

(Agree) with 48 participants and answer “5” (Strongly Disagree) followed next with 19

participants. From there, answer “3” (N/A) was chosen by 14 participants and only 9

participants chose “1” (Strongly Agree). This illustrates that the majority of college students do

not feel obligated to check one’s phone in order to please family and friends. These numbers

contradict previous questions’ results in that the majority of participants display lack of concern

with the people they stay connected with via their phones. However, in other questions (e.g.:


question fourteen), participants show concern that exceeds even scenarios that many would think

deserves the undivided attention of those involved.

According to question seventeen (shown in the pie chart above), most participants said

they have used their cell phone in an emergency situation. 115 of the participants answered “1”

(Yes), which is 73% of all respondents. On the flipside, 43 answered “2” (No), which represents

27% of participants. This pie chart showed that it is beneficial for people to possess their cell

phone at all times and that the vast majority of participants depended on their cell phones in

those emergency situations. Granted it probably turned out in their favor by possessing their


phones at that time, the convenience their cell phones presented shows that there is an increased

attachment to their phones when such a need is present in emergency situations.

According to question eighteen (shown in the pie chart above), the overwhelming

majority of participants felt that their phone helps them stay connected to family, friends, and

peers. 155 participants answered “1” (Yes) and 3 participants answered “2” (No). The pie chart

shows us that people use their phone to feel connected to others. This desire to feel connected to

one’s family, friends, and peers depends on their cell phones and is an apparent sign of

attachment to the technology that enables them to do so.


According to question nineteen (shown in the pie chart above), the seeming majority of

participants have never used their cell phones to cheat in a classroom. 11 participants answered

“1” (Yes) and 147 answered “2” (No). This means 93% of respondents have never used their

cell phones for cheating in a classroom. These results could tell us a number of things; first,

there is the obvious observation that our dependence upon cell phones has not reached the point

that we are relying on them more than our brains to get us through the educational process.

However, this questionnaire was distributed in a classroom setting which the possibility suggests


that they were not completed with entire honesty due to fear of consequence of such admission,

despite guaranteeing all participants anonymity. Though we believe this is likely to be the case,

the evidence still illustrates postivitve results in favor of a lessened attachment to cell phones.

According to question twenty (shown in the graph above), the most chosen answer was

“2” (Agree) with 100 participants, with the second-highest was answer “1” (Strongly agree) with

29 participants. This tells us that the majority or our participants feel safer knowing they have

their cell phone on them with 82% of total respondents speaking in general agreement of this

statement. 18 participants answered “3” (N/A), 8 participants answered “4” (Disagree), and the

lowest amount of participants, with a mere 3 responses, answered “5” (Strongly Disagree). One

of the components of Bowlby’s (1988) attachment theory, a child does what they can to

maintain proximity of their parent(s) to give them a secure base to help give them the confidence

to explore the world. Similarly, many of our participants reflect feelings of the same secure base

when their cell phones are in their possession. When they are constantly connected, they truly

never get that feeling of being alone, even when they physically may be alone in certain

scenarios like a long walk to their car after work in the dark. This is, however, a false feeling of


security because a cell phone is not going to physically protect an individual in any way if

something were to happen to them. This dependence on our cell phones to keep us safe

illustrates yet another component of attachment theory.

According to the results of question twenty-one (shown in the above graph), the majority

of results came back choosing answer ‘2’ (Agree) with 73 participants. The second-most chosen

response was answer ‘4’ (Disagree) at 44 responses. With 58% of total responses declaring

general agreement with this statement, we can state fairly accurately that participants believe that

their lives without their cell phones would experience significant difficulties. This illustrates that


the majority of the population finds the impact of the cell phone to be included life-changing.

You will find a similar effect in taking the parent(s) from a child; they will feel lost without it.

According to the results of question twenty-two (shown in the above graph), over half of

participants agreed to this statement. With 80 respondents choosing answer ‘2’ (Agree) and 16

participants choosing answer ‘1’ (Strongly Agree), that leaves only 30% of participants to choose

either Strongly Disagree or Disagree (excluding the 15 participants that chose N/A). These

results yield that participants are constantly giving their attention to an inanimate object, even if


requires them to find something to do with their phones because no one has reached out to them

at that particular time. They find more interest looking through their digital veil than the world

around them, which seems to display yet another sign of attachment to the phone.

According to the results of question twenty-three (shown in the above graph), 84

participants chosen answer ‘2’ (1-2 hours), followed by answer ‘3’ (3-5 hours) with 49

participants. From there, the other three responses were chosen at about the same rate. Perhaps

even more shocking, 9 participants chose answer ‘5’ (More than 10 hours a day)! If you take into

account sleeping for 6-8 hours a day, that would consume up a significant portion of one’s day

where they are in constant contact with their cell phones. Granted, the results vary, but they are


all quite astounding if you truly take them into consideration. It is slightly assuring that the most

chosen response was 1-2 hours; however we still believe that amount of time spent on an

inanimate object is still quite high for a college student. Attachment is illustrated with these

results, but not as strongly as we had estimated.

According to the results of question twenty-four (shown in the above graph), we find

probably the most even by divided responses out of all questions. The most chosen response by

a slim margin was answer ‘4’ (Disagree) with 66 participants, followed closely by answer ‘2’

(Agree) with 57 participants. Overall, participant percentages in agreement with this statement

are at 41%, while total participant percentages in disagreement are at 46%. With trends so close,


it is hard for us to conclude that college students rely on their phones to stay connected in

general. However, a good portion of our participants display such attachment.

According to the results of question twenty-five (shown in the above graph), the majority

of participants consider themselves attached to their cell phones. 52% of participants reflect

general agreement with this statement, with the greatest answer chosen being question ‘2’ at 66

responses. 48 participants chose answer ‘4’ (Disagree), coming in at the second-most chosen


response. We anticipated that greatest percentages would come from the disagreement side of the

scale; this admission to attachment was interesting.

Question 1: What is your gender? And Question 25: I would consider myself to be attached to my phone. : Cross tabulation

Q:25Total1 2 3 4 5

Q:1 Male 5 35 10 29 10 89Female 11 31 7 19 1 69

Total 16 66 17 48 11 158

When comparing the frequencies between questions 1 to question 25 we wanted to see

who was more attached to their phones, males or females. The cross tabulation test showed that

approximately 45% of males either strongly agreed or agreed that they were attached to their

phone and 44% either disagreed or strongly disagree followed by the smallest answer of 11%

claiming N/A. Approximately 61% of females strongly agreed or agreed to being attached and

29% either disagreed or strongly disagreed leaving 10% who answer N/A. With those results we

can recognize that females are more likely than males to be attached to their cell phone.


Question 8: Is your phone considered a smart phone? And Question 25: I would consider myself attached to my phone. : Cross tabulation

CountQ:25

Total1 2 3 4 5Q:8 1 15 52 11 29 4 111

2 1 14 6 19 7 47Total 16 66 17 48 11 158

When comparing question 8 and question 25, we found that 60% of the people who have

a smart phone either strongly agreed or agreed that they were attached to their phone. 30% of

the people who said they had a smartphone either disagree or strongly disagreed that they were

attached to their phone, leaving the remaining number of people which was 10% of the

participants to answer N/A. We found that 32% of people who did not have a smart phone agreed

or strongly agreed to being attached to their phone and 55% of people who did not have a smart

phone disagreed or strongly disagreed to being attached. With these results we can conclude that


people who have a smart phone are more likely to be attached than those who do not.

Question 10: I feel anxious when I do not have my cell phone with me. And Question 25: I would consider myself to be attached to my phone. :

Cross tabulationCount

Q:25Total1 2 3 4 5

Q:10 1 5 5 0 0 0 102 6 27 7 10 0 503 0 11 3 5 1 204 4 21 7 26 3 615 1 2 0 7 7 17

Total 16 66 17 48 11 158

When comparing these two questions, 10 and 25, we find that 27% of the participants

would consider themselves to be both attached to their cell phone and anxious without their cell

phone. Additionally, 72% of the people who strongly agree or agree to feeling anxious without

their cell phone would consider themselves to be attached to their cell phone. Here we can see


that the majority of individuals who claim they are anxious without their phone would also

consider themselves to be attached.

Question 11: I usually turn my phone off at some point during the day. And Question 25: I would consider myself attached to my phone. : Cross

tabulationCount

Q:25Total1 2 3 4 5

Q:11 1 4 2 3 0 5 142 2 13 4 17 4 403 0 1 1 3 1 64 3 30 7 19 0 595 7 19 2 9 1 38

Total 16 65 17 48 11 157

When comparing questions 11 and 25 we can find that 37.3% of the participants do not

turn their phone off during the day and are attached to their phone. Furthermore, it is recognized

that 73% of individuals who answered agree or strongly agree to being attached to their phone

either disagreed or strongly disagreed to turning it off at some point during the day. From that it

is understood that those who are attached to their phone are not likely to turn it off.


Question 15: I like using my phone because I can contact family, significant others, and friends. And Question 25: I would consider

myself to be attached to my phone. : Cross tabulationCount

Q:25Total1 2 3 4 5

Q:15 1 13 38 11 26 5 932 3 28 6 20 5 623 0 0 0 1 0 14 0 0 0 1 1 2

Total 16 66 17 48 11 158

By comparing these two questions, 15 and 25, we can find that 58% of the participants

both like to contact their family, significant others, and friends with their phone and considered

themselves to be attached to their phone. Furthermore, it is noticeable that 100% of the

individuals who said they are attached to their cell phone like to use it for contacting family,

loved ones, significant others, and friends. From this we can see that it is possible that

individuals may be attached to their phone with the potential of contacting someone they are

attached to.


By comparing questions 20 and 25 we can understand that 45% of the participants feel

safe knowing they have their cell phone with them and are attached to their cell phone.

Moreover, it is noticed that 87% of those who are attached to their cell phones also feel safe

knowing that there cell phone is with them. People who are attached to their cell phone are likely

to feel safer knowing that their cell phone is with them.

Question 20: I feel safe knowing I have my cell phone with me. And Question 25: I would consider myself to be attached to my phone. :

Cross tabulationCount

Q:25Total1 2 3 4 5

Q:20 1 7 15 2 4 1 292 8 41 14 34 3 1003 1 7 0 7 3 184 0 3 1 2 2 85 0 0 0 1 2 3

Total 16 66 17 48 11 158


Question 22: I constantly check my cell phone when there is no reason to look at it. And Question 25: I would consider myself to be attached to

my phone. : Cross tabulationCount

Q:25Total1 2 3 4 5

Q:22 1 5 9 1 1 0 162 9 43 10 17 1 803 0 5 3 6 1 154 1 8 3 21 6 395 1 1 0 3 3 8

Total 16 66 17 48 11 158

When looking at questions 22 and 25 it is noticed that 42% of people of participants

claimed that they check their cell phone constantly for no reason and are attached to their cell

phone. When looking into this question deeper it is noticeable that 80% of the people claiming to

be attached to their cell phone either agreed or strongly agreed that they often check their phone

knowing that there is no reason for them to look at it. Here it is understood that people who are

attached look at their phone for no reason.


Question 23: How many hours a day would you say you are on your phone? And Question 25: I would consider myself to be attached to my

phone. : Cross tabulationCount

Q:25Total1 2 3 4 5

Q:23 1 0 0 1 0 3 42 3 29 8 36 8 843 6 29 4 10 0 494 2 6 3 1 0 125 5 2 1 1 0 9

Total 16 66 17 48 11 158

1-(0 hours) 2-(1-2 hours) 3-(3-5 hours) 4(6-10 hours) 5-(more than 10 hours)

By comparing the frequencies of questions 23 and 25 we can see that 82% of the

individuals who are attached to their cell phone are on their 1-5 hours a day. An individual is

who is attached to their phone is most likely to use their phone 1-5 hours a day. No attached

individuals claimed to use their cell phone 0 hours a day. Only 9% of the individuals who said

they are attached to their cell phone use it more than 10 hours a day. Additionally, we can


understand that long lengths of time spent with the attached object does not correlate to the the

attachment.

Q:10: I feel anxious when I do not have my cell phone And Question 2: What year in school are you in college: Cross tabulation

CountQ:2

TotalFirst Year Sophomore Junior SeniorQ:10 Strongly Agree 6 1 0 3 10

Agree 12 13 11 14 50N/A 5 5 5 5 20Disagree 18 6 14 23 61Strongly Disagree

2 1 4 10 17

Total 43 26 34 55 158

By comparing these two questions we can see that 42% of first year students are anxious

without their phone. When looking at the sophomore class 54% of them are anxious without

their phone followed by juniors where 32% of them are anxious without their phone. Lastly 31%

of seniors are anxious without their phone. This information supports the findings in the

literature review that the younger the individuals the more likely they are to be anxious without a

phone.


Q:20 I feel safe knowing I have my cell phone with me And Q:2 What year are you in college: Cross tabulation

CountQ:20

TotalStrongly Agree Agree N/A Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Q:2 First year 9 25 5 2 2 43Sophomore 4 19 3 0 0 26Junior 5 24 3 1 1 34Senior 11 32 7 5 0 55

Total 29 100 18 8 3 158

Many of the participants who took the questionnaire claimed that they feel safer knowing

that they have their cell phone with them. 79% of first year, 88% of sophomore, 85% of junior,

and 78% of senior students said that they feel safer knowing they have their phone with them.

The two smallest response groups answered the highest. Had there been more junior and

sophomore responses they might have yielded similar percentages to the freshman and senior

participants.


Q:2 What year are you in college And Q:25 I would consider myself to be attached to my phone: Cross tabulation

CountQ:25

TotalStrongly Agree Agree N/A Disagree

Strongly Agree

Q:2 First Year 5 17 3 15 3 43Sophomore 1 12 3 10 0 26Junior 1 18 5 7 3 34Senior 9 19 6 16 5 55

Total 16 66 17 48 11 158

Here we can see that 51% of the first year participants, 50% of the sophomore

participants, 56% of the junior participants, and 51% of the senior participants consider

themselves to be attached to their cell phone. These numbers do not show much variation with

the largest difference being 6%.


When comparing question 2 and question 8, it is recognized that the majority of the

participants own a smartphone. When looking at each class specifically it is noticed that 77% of

first years, 62% of sophomores, 65% of juniors, and 73% of seniors own a smart phone. 70% of

the participants said they did own a smart phone leaving 30% do not own a smart phone.


Chapter Six: Summary

From the 158 participants that answered our questionnaire we were able to make many

conclusions and interpret if our results supported our hypothesis. Firstly, it was predicted that

the average age of when one receives a cell phone would be in the youth teen stage. This was

true with 60% of our strata obtaining a cell phone at the age range 14-16. This is significant

because this is approximately the age that youth in our nation tend to make attempts to break

away from their parent/guardian and be independent. This is no coincidence that many are first

introduced to their first cell phone around this time. If this attachment to the cell phone exists,

the timing would be perfect for the individual to transfer their dependence from their

parent/guardian to their mobile phone.

Furthermore, it was found that people carry their cell phones with them at all times.

According to the data 79.7% of our strata answered they carry their cell phone with them at all

times. This shows that one is attached to their phone by not having any separation from it. In

the attachment theory this would be considered proximity maintenance. The majority of

participants choose to keep it available for their convenience of use. This directly relates to the

conclusion that the majority of our strata, 73%, have used their cell phone in an emergency

situation. This proves us that that it is beneficial for people to possess their cell phone at all

times and that the vast majority of participants depended on their cell phones in those emergency

situations. This supports of hypothesis in the sense that by possessing ones cell phone

constantly, shows that there is an increased attachment to their phones when such a need is

present in emergency situations.

Moreover, it was recognized that the majority or our participants feel safer knowing they

have their cell phone on them with 82% of total respondents speaking in general agreement. One


of the attachment theory components is safety haven. It is obvious here that the phone acts as a

form of a safety haven here because when people have their phone they do feel safer. Similarly,

many of our participants answering that they feel safe knowing they are with their phone proves

that it acts as a secure base. When they are constantly connected, they truly never get that

feeling of being alone. However, they physically may be alone in certain scenarios the

individual’s cell phone can potentially connect the attached individual with someone that can

actually make them safer.

Additionally, with 58% of total responses declaring general agreement that day to day life

would be difficult without ones cell phone. We inferred accurately that participants believe that

their lives without their cell phones would experience substantial change. This illustrates that the

majority of the population finds the impact of the cell phone to indeed be life-changing. A

similar effect in Bowlby’s theory of attachment can be found when pertaining to taking the

parent(s) from a child; they will feel lost without it. This relates to our hypothesis which

Bowlby's theory helped generate.

Another finding we made from the results was that the strata are constantly giving their

attention to their cell phones. Over half of our participants agreed that they check their cell

phone when there is no reason to look at it. This helps aid to confirming several parts of the

attachment theory. The individual could be confirming that their phone is still in their position to

avoid the distress that may occur from separation, proximity maintenance to assure that the cell

phone is in their position, furthermore, the cell phone could create a secure base for the attached

individual when they look at it.

All in all, the results ultimately support the hypothesis. However, an important question

that did not support the hypothesis, asked the participant if they feel anxious when without their


cell phone. Only 38% of participants claimed that they feel anxious when they are without their

phone. Yet when comparing it to the most important question (I would consider myself attached

to my cell phone) which over half the strata agreed to, it was recognized that 72% of the people

who feel anxious without their phone are attached. Ultimately, the questions that supported in

favor of our hypothesis included the ones asking the participant if they carried their phone at all

times, if they feel safe knowing they have their phone, if they check their phone for no reason,

and most important if they are attached. All responses to these questions had over half of the

respondents agree.


Chapter Seven: Limitations of the study

If we, the researchers, could implement the study again, we would suggest that more time

concentrated for the research would be beneficial for this study. Research takes time and it

would have been beneficial to have more time to research the topic before beginning the data

collection portion of the project. Furthermore, it would have been helpful to look into more

ways that the topic could have been researched. However, given the limited time, this was not

possible. Moreover, the information that we, the researchers, did find on the topic of cell phone

usage and attachment theory was limited. Obviously, it would have been meaningless to perform

this study if there was an abundance of information relating to this topic. However, there was

hardly any research that addressed a direct relation of people being attached to their phone

except for most recently. The study of nomophobia is very new and finding scholarly reviewed

articles was challenging. Most of the study was reported through news articles and television.

Therefore, the information found exists and is verifiable but it was not in the preferred research

format.

When researching Attachment Theory, it would have been convenient to understand the

psychology prior to this study. It is difficult to understand psychological terminology and theory

without any prior scientific knowledge before researching. In addition, there was no budget for

this project. Everything had to be funded by the researchers. While there was not a lot of

external funding necessary because the electronic database resources are provided by the college,

funding was required for the costs of questionnaire copies and the final binding of the research

project.

Moreover, in the literature review it was discussed that the younger someone is the more

likely they are to be attached to their phone. There were 55 seniors that participated which was

largest and 26 sophomore participants which was the lowest class. This could have slightly


skewed the results because older people who potentially could have been less attached to their

cell phone accounted for a large percentage of the data. It would have been preferred that the

strata was even with all grades having approximately 40 participants.

Furthermore, another problem with the data was directly related to the way some of the

participants responded. On the questionnaire, there were individuals who answered “N/A” for

question, to which they obviously could have answered. For example, some individuals said

they have Internet on their phone and when asking if they could go back to a phone without

Internet they responded “N/A”. The “N/A” response was intended to be there for an individual

who did not have Internet on their phone or otherwise the question was not applicable to that

person. Directions should have been clearer to make this point. Moreover, there should have

been a “neutral” choice for participants to respond. For a lot of questions that choice of “neutral”

would have been more appropriate response for many who answered “N/A”. However, it was

still appropriate that “N/A” was included as a response if by chance there was a person who

completed the questionnaire who did not have a cell phone. Not only could there have been more

choices added to the Likert scale on the questionnaire, the questions could have been more

specific towards answering the research question and hypothesis. A lot of the questions implied

the same ideas to compare to attachment theory but not as specific as it could have been. The

questions did not use the key components terms in Bowlby’s attachment theory such as secure

base, safety haven, proximity maintenance, and distress upon separation. Attachment was

defined but the components of attachment were not used in the definition. Furthermore, some of

the questions were not necessary on the questionnaire and irrelevant. For example the questions

asking the participant if they would rather text than call someone, that did not give relevant data

towards attachment theory. The question about cheating though discussed in the literature


review did not give usable data accurate/honest results.

Finally, determining how to use the program PSAW was very difficult. Not one of the

researchers had previously used this program so it was difficult getting accustomed to PSAW. If

prior research or classes had been done in order to better understand and operate the program that

would had been very convenient.


Chapter Eight: Recommendations for further study

We, the researchers, have found that people are experiencing Bowlby’s components with

their cell phones. The components include separation upon distress, proximity maintenance, a

secure base, and a safety haven. However, as technology has grown through the years past

research has shown that individual’s attachment to their phones has grown. Over the past four

years there has been an 11% rise of people experiencing Bowlby’s attachment components or

some other form of anxiety or tenseness without their cell phone (Kung, 2012). Furthermore,

one of the major recommendations to pursue this study would be to wait a significant amount of

time such as 5-10 years. If anxiety without a phone has grown 11% in four years one could

assume this anxiety, distress upon separation, or proximity maintenance would continue to grow

along with the other two components. Moreover, this could be researched further once more

scholarly information and research is composed dealing with nomophobia in the future. It would

be beneficial to start the research at nomophobia or around it. Unfortunately, that all of the

nomophobia studies began to arise while the research was being conducted. There is not yet a lot

of scholarly published information yet pertaining to nomophobia. However, the younger

generations experience more difficult times without their phone (Kung, 2012). If this study

desired to be completed recently, collecting data from younger individuals might be more

beneficial, yet selecting a specific age group might pose a bias.

Additionally, it was noticed that 100% of the people that are attached to their phone like

to use it to contact loved ones, family, friends, and significant others. To start research using this

question to find if the reason people are attached to their phone because they can contact the

people they are attached to would be interesting to know.

Overall, the main recommendation would be to wait. Scholarly research on nomophobia


is bound to come soon and its looks as if the younger generations are more likely to be attached

to their phones.


Chapter Nine: Conclusion

Through research at a small catholic private college in the Midwest the research question

what component(s) of attachment do college students experience with their cell phones was able

to be answered. The hypothesis which was college students will experience at least one or more

of the four attachment theory components with their cell phones was verified. There were

several questions on the questionnaire that help conclude these results. The last question we

asked on the questionnaire was, “I would consider myself to be attached to my phone,” 52%

participants agree with 11% of people answering N/A which leaves only 37% of the participants

claiming not to be attached to their phone. Furthermore, we found that females are more likely

to be attached to their phone where 61% of the females who responded considered themselves to

be attached to their cell phone. This question was the most important but there were several

other questions that were very close in importance.

Another question that helps support our hypothesis is the question, “I carry my phone

with me at all times,” This question was used to demonstrate proximity maintenance. 79.75% of

our participants said yes whereas, 20.25% said no. This shows that the majority of the

participants feel more comfortable having their phone with them at all times. When proximity

maintenance occurs the attached individual wants to be with the attachment at all times thus

supporting the hypothesis and attachment theory. That leads to one of the questions where some

of the most valuable data was found, “I feel safe knowing I have my cell phone with me,” to

which 129 or 82% of the participants said they strongly agree or agree. The people that agreed

to this question are experiencing a safety haven or a secure base through their phone, they feel

safe knowing there attachment is with them. These questions, combined, help support the

evidence of attachment theory because if the participants always have their phones on along with


feeling safe while doing so, then safety could be a main reason why they are attached to their

phones.

A question that we thought was going to really help support our hypothesis was, “I feel

anxious when I do not have my cell phone with me,” 78 participants said that they disagree or

strongly disagree and 60 participants said they agree or strongly agree. The results from this

question would have helped conclude weather or not individuals are attached to their phone.

This question would have helped answer the distress upon separation component. Conversely,

most people admitted to carrying their phone with them most of the time so we do not know that

these individuals would know how it feels to be without their phone. However, 72% of the

people who said they are anxious without their phone would consider themselves to be attached

to their cell phone. From this we can conclude that the majority of individuals who feel the

anxiety when they do not have their phone are attached which supports the hypothesis.

Overall, our hypothesis that college students are experiencing at least one or more of the

four attachment theory components with their cell phones is correct. The literature review

discussed the four attachment theory components are safe haven, secure base, proximity

maintenance, and separation distress. These components were related to college students with

their cell phones. The most popular components that validate the hypothesis are safe haven

which is similar to a secure base, and proximity maintenance. Some people agreed to the

separation distress component by saying they feel anxious without their phone. However, there

were not enough people to confirm that they feel distressed when being separated from their

phone. Furthermore, most of these people never leave their phone behind so they are not able to

feel distressed since they always have their phone. This was able to be understood by a series of

methods including a questionnaire that 158 participants completed. The questionnaire allowed


for data to be collected and analyzed. There were several limitations including things we would

have done different in the study if starting again. If someone decides to conduct this study or

pick up where it was left of one of the main recommendations is to wait. Over the years it is said

that people are becoming more likely to be attached to their phone. Finally, it was found that a

lot of people admitted to being attached to their phone 52% of people to be precise. Only 37% of

people disagreed to being attached to their phone. Over all through the data that was found it can

be concluded that college students are experiencing one or more attachment theory components.


References

Adler, E.M., & Clark, R. (2003). How it’s done: An invitation to social research. (2nd ed.).

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Publishers.

Agar, J. (2004). Constant Touch: a Global History of the Mobile Phone. Retrieved from

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/staff/agar/documents/agar_constanttouch

Al-Bakri, S. H., Kiah, M. L., Zaidan, A. A., Zaidan, B. B., Alam G. (2011) . Securing peer- to-

peer mobile communications using public key cryptography: New security strategy.

International Journal of the Physical Sciences, 6(4), 930-938.

Aoki, A., & Downes, E. (2003). An Analysis of Young People’s Use Of and Attitudes Toward

Cell Phones. Telematics and Information, 20, 349-364. 10.1016/SO736-5853 (03)000-

18-2

Aucoin, D. (2007, April 22) To End a Romance, Just press Send: instant messaging altering the

way we love. The Boston Globe. A1. Retrieved from

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=06907aeb-d56d-45d0-a042-

0105422dcacb%40sessionmgr14&vid=2&hid=14

Beaver, T., Knox, D., & Zusman, M. E. (2010). "Hold the phone!: cell phone use and partner

reaction among university students. College Student Journal, 44(3), 629-632.

Bennett, S., & Vitale Saks, L. (2006). A conceptual application of attachment theory and

research to the social work student- filed instructor supervisory relationship.

Journal Of Social Work Education, 42(3), 669-682.

Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss: Volume 1. Attachment. New York, NY: Basic

Books.

Bowlby, J, (1988). A secure base. New York: Basic Books.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/staff/agar/documents/agar_constanttouch


Chen, G.D., Chang, C.K., & Wang, C.Y. (2008). Ubiquitious learning website: Scaffold leaners

By mobile devices with information- aware techniques. Computers & Education, 50, 77-

90. Doi:10.101/j.compedu.2006.03.004

Cox, A. (2008, November 23) Teens using texting as a means to flirt, break up. Las Vegas

Review Journal. J5. Retrieved on October 8, 2012 from

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=06907aeb-d56d-45d0-a042-

0105422dcacb%40sessionmgr14&vid=2&hid=14

Devitt, K., & Roker, D. (2009). The role of mobile phones in family communication. Children

& Society, 23(3), 189-202. doi:10.1111/j.1099-0860.2008.00166.x

Duran, R. L., Kelly, L., & Rotaru, T. (2011). mobile phones in romantic relationships and the

dialectic of autonomy versus connection. Communication Quarterly, 59(1), 19-36.

doi:10.1080/01463373.2011.541336

Gahran,A. (2012). Survey says most U.S. cell phone owners have smartphones; so what?. CNN

Tech). Retrieved from http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-

02/tech/tech_mobile_smartphones-majority-pew-gahran_1_smartphone-cell-phone-

android-phone?_s=PM:TECH

Gurrie, C. and Johnson, M. (2011, September 1) “What are they doing on those cell phones?

Bridging the gap to better understand student cell phone use and motivations in class.”

Florida Communication Journal. Fall 2011. Vol. 39, Issue 2, p. 11-12. Retrieved from

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=5441ffc1-94f6-4935- a7ce-

e470763218ec%40sessionmgr12&vid=2&hid=10

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-%0902/tech/tech_mobile_smartphones-majority-pew-gahran_1_smartphone-cell-phone-%09android-phone?_s=PM:TECH




Hanson, T. L., Drumheller, K., Mullard, J., Schlegel, P. (2011) Cell phones, text messaging,

and facebook: competing time demands of today’s college students. College Teaching,

59, 23-30. 10:1080/87567555.2010.489078

Hesse, E., & Main, M. (1999). Second-generation effects of unresolved trauma in nonmaltreating

parents: Dissociated, frightened and threatening parental behavior. Psychoanalytic

Inquiry, 19, 481–540.

Hinde, R. A. (1974). Biological bases of human social behavior. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Hrdy, S. B. (1999). Mother nature: A history of mothers, infants, and natural selection. New

York, NY: Pantheon Books.

Jaschik, S. (2008, April 2) “If You Text in Class, This Professor Will Leave”. Inside Higher Ed.

Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?

sid=5441ffc1-94f6-4935-a7ce- e470763218ec%40sessionmgr12&vid=2&hid=10

Johnson, C., & Kritsonis, W.A (2007). National school debate: Banning cell phones on public

school campuses in America. National Forum of Educational Administration and

Supervision Journals, 25(4), 1-6

Jin, B., & Peña, J. F. (2010). mobile communication in romantic relationships: mobile phone

use, relational uncertainty love, commitment, and attachment styles. Communication

Reports, 23(1), 39-51. doi:10.1080/08934211003598742

Kung, V. (2012, March 7). Rise of 'nomophobia': More people fear loss of mobile contact.

CNN Tech. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/06/tech/mobile/nomophobia-

mobile-addiction/index.html

Leung, L., & Wei, R. (2000). More than just talk on the move: uses and gratification of the

cellular phone. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(2), 308-320.


Lenhart, A., Arafeh, S., Smith, A., & MacGuill, A. R. (2008). Writing, technology and

teens. Retrieved from http://pwptechnology.pbworks.com/f/Writing,Technology and

Teens - Pew Research Center.pdf

Main, M., Hesse, E., & Hesse, S. (2011). Attachment theory and research: overview with

suggested applications to child custody. Family Court Review, 49(3), 426-463.

doi:10.1111/j.1744-1617.2011.01383.x

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2008). Adult attachment and affect regulation. In J. Cassidy &

P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research and Clinical

Applications (2nd ed., pp. 503–531). NewYork, NY: The Guilford Press.

Miller-Ott, A. E., Kelly, L., & Duran, R. L. (2012). The effects of cell phone usage rules on

satisfaction in romantic relationships. Communication Quarterly, 60(1), 17-34.

doi:10.1080/01463373.2012.642263

“Mobile Phone Sales Continue Double-Digit Growth”. (2006, January) Business Communication

Review. Vol 36. Issue 1, p6-6, 1/2p. Retrieved from

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=f05c3fae-3355-4624-a72a-

9683d0ee18ac%40sessionmgr11&vid=2&hid=21

Nicholson, J. A. (2004). Dis/connect: Histories of Mobile Communication. Topia

(York University), (11), 155-159. Pettigrew, J. (2009). Text messaging and connectedness

within close Interpersonal relationships. Marriage & Family Review, 45(6-8), 697-716.

doi:10.1080/01494920903224269

Pew Internet & American Life Project (2006, April). “PEW Internet project data memo: cell

phone use [Press Release]”. Washington, D.C: Author. Retrieved from


http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=77ae3798-cb54-4d3b- 854d-

0363c58e852a%40sessionmgr10&vid=2&hid=21

Pew Internet & American Life Project (2008, October 19. “Traditional nuclear families use the

internet and cell phone to create a “new connectedness” that revolves around remote

interactions and shared online experiences [Press Release]”. Washington, D.C: Author.

Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=77ae3798-

cb54-4d3b-854d-0363c58e852a%40sessionmgr10&vid=2&hid=21

Reading, A. (2008). The mobile family gallery? Gender memory and the camera phone trames: A

Journal Of The Humanities & Social Sciences, 12(3), 355-365. doi:10.3176/tr.2008.3.10

Rosen, C. (2004). Our Cell Phones, Ourselves. The New Atlantis, 6, 26-45. Retrieved from

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/our-cell-phones-ourselves

Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2006). A behavioral system approach to romantic love

relationships: Attachment, caregiving, and sex. In R. J. Sternberg & K. Weis (Eds.), The

new psychology of love (pp. 35–64). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Shinn, S. (2009, January/February). Dial m for mobile. BizEd, 8 (1), 32-38 Retrieved from

http://www.aacsb.edu/publications/Archives/janfeb09-toc.asp

Singh, M., & Lal, R. (2012). Mobile phone as a tool for Media Convergence. Indian Streams

Research Journal, 2(4), 1-3.

Snyder, R., Shapiro, S., & Treleaven, D. (2012). Attachment Theory and Mindfulness. Journal

Of Child & Family Studies, 21(5), 709-717. doi:10.1007/s10826-011-9522-8

“Update: Cellular Telephones”. (2007, December 21). Issues & Controversies On File. Retrieved

from http://www.2facts.com/icof_story.aspx?PIN=i1200700&term=cellular+phones

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/our-cell-phones-ourselves

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=77ae3798-%09cb54-4d3b-854d-0363c58e852a@sessionmgr10&vid=2&hid=21

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=77ae3798-%09cb54-4d3b-854d-0363c58e852a@sessionmgr10&vid=2&hid=21

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=77ae3798-cb54-4d3b-%09854d-%090363c58e852a@sessionmgr10&vid=2&hid=21

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=77ae3798-cb54-4d3b-%09854d-%090363c58e852a@sessionmgr10&vid=2&hid=21


Vincent, J. (2006). Emotional Attachment and Mobile Phones. Knowledge, Technology &

Policy, 19(1), 39-44.

Walsh, S. P., White, K., & McD Young, R. (2010). Needing to connect: The effect of self and

others on young people's involvement with their mobile phones. Australian Journal Of

Psychology, 62(4), 194-203. doi:10.1080/00049530903567229


Chapter Eleven: Appendices


Appendix A

Loras College Institutional Review Board

REQUEST FOR IRB REVIEW


Student Research Project

Please complete the following research application. Provide all information requested as

part of this application. Do not simply refer to other documents or grant applications. Once

completed, send this form, with the attached Research description, and all supporting documents

(email preferred) to the Institutional Review Board chair: Kathrin Parks, Sociology Program

(588-7819); [email protected]

Ethics Certification: In submitting this review request, you agree to conduct this research

as described in the attached documents. You agree to request and wait to receive approval from

the IRB for any changes to the research proposal. You will comply with the policies for

conducting ethical research as outlined in the Belmont Report (at

http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/belmont.html .) and other applicable professional ethical

standards.

1. Student Investigator(s) and contact information:

1. Michael Gossen- (815) 483-6719 [email protected]

2. Jessica Kern- (630) 730-3195 [email protected]

3. Sarah Alt- (563) 451-3776 [email protected]

4. Rachel Rieger- (630) 251-6293 [email protected]

5. Jake Roth – (563) 451-2614 [email protected]

2. Title of Project:

Attachment Theory: College students and cell phone usage

3. Course Requiring Project: Communication Research: COM 485

4. Faculty sponsor name and contact information:


Dr. Mary Carol Harris [email protected] 588-7820.

5. Proposed duration of all project activities: From August 27th to December 10th

6. Approximate number of subjects: 150

7. Type of subject: (Mark all appropriate)

__ Adults, Non-student

X Loras College students

__ Other college students

__ Minors (under age 18)

__ Persons with cognitive or psychological impairment

__ Persons with limited civil freedom

__ Persons with HIV+/AIDS

__ Pregnant women

8. Special considerations: (Mark all appropriate)

X No special materials

__ Videotaping

__ Audio taping

__ Use of deception (explain in attachment)

__ Use of alcohol or drugs

__ Other (explain):

9. Funding source (other than Loras College):

Michael Gossen, Jessica Kern, Sarah Alt, Rachel Rieger, Jake Roth


RESEARCH DESCRIPTION

Please address each of the following points below. If a question or section is not applicable to

your research, please state this.

1. Purpose & Significance of Project.

• Briefly describe the purpose of your research.

The purpose of our research is to determine if college students experience attachment to their cell

phones according to the components of the attachment theory

• Describe your hypotheses/goals. If you give background on previous research that

supports your goals, please include reference citations at end of this section.

We believe that college students are experiencing different components of attachment to their

cellphone. We want to determine if the students are actually experiencing attachment

components from Bowlby’s attachment theory. The attachment components include proximity

maintenance where the attached person wants to be near to the attachment. A haven of safety is

next which is when they feel comfort and safe to be around the attachment. Then, a secure base

is when a person finds security within the attachment. Finally, separation distress when anxiety

takes place because the person is away from the attachment (Main et al., 2011; Vincent, 2006).

• Include an explanation of the expected outcome.

The majority of college students will experience different components of attachment with their

cell phones. If a cell phone has more capabilities such as 3G internet and apps the individual will

be more likely to experience attachment.

• Indicate why the information obtained might be useful or beneficial.


The information obtained can be useful to the beginnings of understanding if an individual is

experiencing components of attachment.

2. Participants

Recruitment:

• How will you recruit the participants?

-Participants will be selected randomly.

• Where will they be recruited from?

The participants will be recruited from the fall 2012 course schedule

• How will they be selected?

- Courses will be selected randomly by using a random number chart.

• Justification is required if participants will be restricted to one gender, racial, or ethnic

group.

- This question is not applicable to our research

Consent:

• How will you obtain consent?

- A consent from will be attached to every questionnaire for every participant to

read and agree to.

• If, due to the nature of your research, a formal consent document cannot be used,

justification for this must be given.



Collaboration:

• If you will be collaborating with other institutions in order to recruit participants and

conduct the research, please attach approvals that have been or will be obtained (e.g., school

districts, hospitals, other colleges). Preferably these will be letters on the cooperating

institution’s letterhead, stating willingness to participate.

This question is not applicable to our research

3. Methods and Procedure: Describe your research procedure.

• What will you ask the participants to do?

- We will ask our participants to complete a questionnaire that we distribute to

their randomly selected course

• Where will they do this? Alone or in groups?

- They will complete the questionnaire individually but at the same time as their

peers in a classroom setting

• How long will the procedure take? How many sessions?

- The procedure of introducing ourselves and our purpose to the students along

with them completing the questionnaire will take 5-7 minutes

• Give details about any questionnaires or stimuli participants will be exposed to; be

specific in amounts or dosages of any substances participants will be asked to ingest.

(Participants may not consume alcoholic beverages in student research projects.)

- The students will complete a 25 question questionnaire that asks age, gender,

and various questions (that will be responded to with the Likert scale)

about their cell phone and how they use it.


• Instruments/Materials: Attach copies of all forms, surveys and instruments to be used.

- Questionnaire with 25 questions

4. Risk & Benefit Analysis

• What are the psychological, physical, or social (loss of reputation, deception, privacy,

etc) risks subjects might encounter by participating? (Please do not say “none.” All activities

involve some risk, although it may be minimal.)

- The subjects will be asked if they have ever used their cell phone to cheat in a

classroom, and other questions that ask how they use their cell phone and

who they connect with through it.

• What precautions will you take to protect participants or reduce risk?

- After the consent form is removed from the questionnaire there is no way of

knowing which questionnaire the participant completed. Anonymity of the

participants is assured on the consent form.

• What benefit, if any, will the participants gain from participating in this research?

(Please do not include compensation or course credit as benefit. If none, simply state that.)

- Participants may be introduced to the actuality of how often they use their cell

phone

• What compensation, if any, will participants receive (payment, gifts, course credit, etc.)?

(If none, simply state that.)

- Other than gratitude from the researchers no compensation will be distributed

• What follow-up or debriefing procedures will you have after the research is concluded?


- Upon the completion of the research the questionnaires will be disposed of in the

spring of 2013

• If any deception or withholding of information is required for this research, please

explain why it is necessary and how this will be handled in the debriefing. Attach debriefing

script.

- Questionnaires will be retained until the spring of 2013 because the course

grade, COM 485, that requires this research to be accomplished, can still

be contested until that time.

5. Data Handling

• How will the data be kept anonymous or confidential?

- All consent forms will be removed from the questionnaire and be kept separately

• Where will data be stored and for how long? Who will have access to the data?

- The data will be stored in the researchers personal residence

• Include specific details on the use and storage of any audio or video tapes.


• Do you plan to share the results of this research in a class? If so, how?

- The results will be formally presented in our communication research class,

COM 485 to Dr. Mary Carol Harris and other students enrolled in the

course

• Do you plan to share the results of this research outside of your class? If so, how?

- This research may be presented in a college panel of presentation in the spring

of 2013 or possibly to a prospect employer


6. If Participants Will Be Minors (Under age 18)

• Justify the inclusion of minors.


• Specify how parental consent will be obtained


• Specify how you will obtain assent of minor subjects.


• Describe any activities planned for non-participants, if other children in a classroom will

be participating.


• Describe how you will use nonverbal signs to indicate when young children wish to stop

participating.


7. Investigator Background (Student researchers only)

• What coursework have you had to prepare you for research?

- No previous coursework that would aid with this research

• What is your previous research-related experience, if any?

- Historical Methods HIS 288 (a research based history course)

• How will your faculty sponsor supervise or be involved?

- Dr. Mary Carol Harris will answer any questions and sanction the way processes

of the research are completed


8. Consent Forms. Please attach one of the following options related to obtaining consent:

• Written Consent – Attach copy of all consent & assent forms. See Informed Consent

Checklist on the IRB website

(http://inside.loras.edu/Academics/AcademicCommittees/IRB/default.aspx).

- See appendix B

• Oral consent – Provide justification for not obtaining written consent and the text of the

script you will use to obtain oral consent.

• Waiver of consent – Provide written justification for waiving consent process. This is

rare and usually granted only if consent process itself adds substantial risk to the

research.

http://inside.loras.edu/Academics/AcademicCommittees/IRB/default.aspx


Appendix B


Dear Student,

As students enrolled in the Communication Research course, we are very interested in assessing Loras College students’ perception of Attachment Theory and the usage of cell phones. The course in which you are currently enrolled has been randomly selected from the comprehensive list of Fall 2012 courses to participate in our study.

Your participation in this study is voluntary; however, your feedback is important. Please print and sign your name in the spaces provided below. Please do not put your name on the questionnaire.

We, the researchers, guarantee your anonymity and the results will be confidential regarding all responses and information shared in this study. Your responses will only be used for the research being conducted in the Fall 2012 Communication Research course.

Please return your completed questionnaire to the researcher in the front of this classroom. If you have further questions, please contact our professor, Dr. Mary Carol Harris at [email protected].

Thank you for your participation in our study.

Sincerely,

Michael Gossen Jessica Kern Jacob Roth Rachel R. Rieger Sarah Alt

Date______________

Print your name______________________

Sign your name____________________________

mailto:[email protected]


Directions: For the purpose of this study attachment is defined as a dependence on someone or something that provides a sense of security, stability, or safety. Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability by circling what applies to you:

1. What is your gender?

Male Female

2. What year are you in college?

A.) First year B.) Sophomore C.) Junior D.) Senior

3. At what age did you first get a cell phone?

A) 8-10 B) 11-13 C) 14-16 D) 17-19 E) 20-22 F) 23+ G) N/A

4. I would find it odd for someone to not have a cell phone.

Strongly Agree Agree N/A Disagree Strongly Disagree

5. I carry my phone with me at all times.

Yes No


6. I use Internet on my phone multiple times a day.


7. I couldn’t go back to a cell phone without Internet.


8. Is your phone considered a smart phone? (A smartphone is a device that combines a

phone with the capabilities of a handheld computer, typically offering Internet access,

data storage, e-mail capabilities, applications, etc.)

Yes No

9. I use my cell phone to avoid awkward situations (ex. elevators with strangers).


10. I feel anxious when I do not have my cell phone with me.



11. I usually turn my phone off at some point during the day.


12. I would rather text then call someone.


13. In a typical day I use my cell phone for more than texting and calling.


14. I text when I know I shouldn’t (ex: class, work, dinner)


15. I like using my phone because I can contact family, significant others, and friends.



16. I feel I must constantly check my phone because family, significant others and friends

might be mad if I do not respond right away.


17. Have you ever used your cell phone is an emergency situation?

Yes No

18. Do you believe your phone helps you stay connected with others (friends, family, peers,

teachers, etc.)?

Yes No

19. Have you ever used your cell phone to cheat in a classroom?

Yes No

20. I feel safe knowing I have my cell phone with me.



21. I believe day to day life would be very difficult without my cell phone


22. I constantly check my cell phone when there is no reason to look at it.


23. How many hours a day would you say you are on your phone?

A) 0 B) 1-2 C) 3-5 D) 6-10 E) More than 10 hours a day

24. I believe I am disconnected to the world when I do not have my phone.


25. I would consider myself to be attached to my phone.


Thank you for your time.


Appendix C


LORAS COLLEGE SCHEDULE - FALL 2012 LAST UPDATED: 11/19/12 12:00

MAX USED DEPT SYN CAT SEC TITLE CRED TIME DAY BLDG ROOM INSTRUCTOR(S)

25 24 L.ACC 1053 225 01 Prin of Accounting I 3.0 08:00-08:50 MWF HOFF 329 Sturm, K Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

25 23 L.ACC 1054 225 02 Prin of Accounting I 3.0 09:00-09:50 MWF HOFF 312 Lammer, L Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

25 22 L.ACC 1055 225 03 Prin of Accounting I 3.0 10:00-10:50 MWF ARCE 102 Kerkenbush, R Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

25 13 L.ACC 1056 225 04 Prin of Accounting I 3.0 12:30-01:20pm MWF HOFF 311 Lammer, L Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

25 21 L.ACC 1057 226 01 Prin of Accounting II 3.0 09:00-09:50 MWF HOFF 329 Sturm, K Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

32 31 L.ACC 1058 331 01 Intermed Financial Acct I 3.0 10:00-10:50 MWF HOFF 311 Lammer, L Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

30 31 L.ACC 1059 343 01 Cost Accounting 3.0 08:00-09:20 TTH HOFF 340 Sturm, K Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

10 3 L.ACC 2397 394 01 Accounting Internship 3.0 ARR ARR ARR Sturm, K Aug 27 - Dec 13 Instructor Signature Required NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

10 0 L.ACC 2401 394 02 Accounting Internship 3.0 ARR ARR ARR Lammer, L Aug 27 - Dec 13 Instructor Signature Required NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS



10 1 L.ACC 2424 394 05 Accounting Internship 5.0 ARR ARR ARR Lammer, L Aug 27 - Dec 13 Instructor Signature Required NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

25 15 L.ACC 1060 455 01 Federal Income Tax I 3.0 08:00-09:20 TTH ARCE 102 Schleicher, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

25 14 L.ACC 1061 468 01 Adv Financial Accounting 3.0 09:00-09:50 MWF ARCE 102 Kerkenbush, R Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS



20 15 L.ADD 2158 105 01 Representational Drawing 3.0 11:00-12:20pm WF VISI 115 Jewell-Vitale, T Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

20 14 L.ADD 2159 110 01 2D Design 3.0 12:30-01:50pm TTH VISI 115 Romero, W Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

15 8 L.ADD 2160 215 01 Critical Analysis I 1.0 02:30-03:50pm M VISI 111 Romero, W Aug 27 - Dec 13

15 1 L.ADD 2161 225 01 Critical Analysis II 1.0 02:30-03:50pm M VISI 111 Romero, W Aug 27 - Dec 13

16 14 L.ADD 2162 230 01 Digital Design Fundamentals 3.0 11:00-12:20pm TTH HOFF 435 Myers, S Aug 27 - Dec 13


15 10 L.ADD 2164 315 01 Critical Analysis III 1.0 02:30-03:50pm M VISI 111 Romero, W Aug 27 - Dec 13

20 2 L.ADD 2265 325 01 Critical Analysis IV 1.0 02:30-03:50pm M VISI 111 Romero, W Aug 27 - Dec 13

16 15 L.ADD 2165 340 01 Graphic Design II 3.0 11:00-12:20pm WF HOFF 435 Romero, W Aug 27 - Dec 13

16 14 L.ADD 2163 350 01 Interact Multimedia Projects I 3.0 02:00-03:20pm TTH HOFF 435 Myers, S Aug 27 - Dec 13

12 4 L.ADM 1821 530 01 Educational Research/DDL 3.0 06:45-09:10pm W WAHL 124 Manges, C Aug 22 - Dec 13 GRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY

12 4 L.ADM 1823 560 01 Curriculum II 3.0 08:00-04:00pm S ICN AOD Manges, C / Markward,D Sep 22 - Nov 17 GRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY Class meet from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the ICN site on the following 5 Saturdays: September 22; October 6, 20; November 3, 17.

20 4 L.ADM 1822 590 01 Elem Sec School Principalship 3.0 08:00-04:00pm S ICN AOD Manges, C Sep 15 - Nov 10 GRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY Class meet from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the ICN site on the following 5 Saturdays: September 15 and 29; October 13 and 27; and November 10.

20 4 L.ADM 1824 611 01 Supervised Field Experience 2.0 06:00-08:00pm M ICN AOD Manges, C Sep 24 - Nov 26 GRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY Class meets from 6:00-8:00 p.m. at the ICN site on the following Mondays: September 24, October 29 and November 26.

20 17 L.ART 1137 125 01 Life Drawing I 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH VISI B18 Jewell-Vitale, T Aug 27 - Dec 13

15 13 L.ART 1139 140 01 Intro to Painting 3.0 12:30-01:50pm TTH VISI B18 Jewell-Vitale, T Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES


15 1 L.ART 1138 225 01 Life Drawing II 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH VISI B18 Jewell-Vitale, T Aug 27 - Dec 13

15 2 L.ART 1140 240 01 Intermediate Painting I 3.0 12:30-01:50pm TTH VISI B18 Jewell-Vitale, T Aug 27 - Dec 13

15 2 L.ART 1141 241 01 Intermediate Painting II 3.0 12:30-01:50pm TTH VISI B18 Jewell-Vitale, T Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 9 L.ATR 1344 280 01 Athletic Training Clinical I 1.0 11:00-11:50 W AWC 110 Newman, N Aug 27 - Dec 13 ATHLETIC TRAINING MAJORS ONLY

25 12 L.ATR 1345 290 01 Eval. of Athletic Injuries I 3.0 02:30-03:50pm MW ROHL 127 Newman, N Aug 27 - Dec 13 ATHLETIC TRAINING MAJORS ONLY

25 13 L.ATR 1346 380 01 Athletic Training Clinical III 1.0 12:30-01:20pm T AWC 110 Kamm,C Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

25 24 L.ATR 1347 455 01 Adv Care/Prev Ath Injuries 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH GRAB 206 Newman, N Aug 27 - Dec 13 ATHLETIC TRAINING MAJORS ONLY

25 11 L.ATR 1348 482 01 Athletic Training Clinical V 1.0 08:00-08:50 W AWC 110 Newman, N Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

20 18 L.BIO 1305 115 01 Principles of Biology I 4.0 09:00-09:50 MWF HENN 070 Cooper, K Aug 27 - Dec 13 08:00-10:50 TH SCIE 049 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

20 19 L.BIO 1306 115 02 Principles of Biology I 4.0 09:00-09:50 MWF HENN 070 Cooper, K Aug 27 - Dec 13 11:00-01:50pm TH SCIE 049 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

20 16 L.BIO 1307 115 03 Principles of Biology I 4.0 09:00-09:50 MWF SCIE 242 Schnee, F Aug 27 - Dec 13 02:00-04:50pm TH SCIE 049 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

20 17 L.BIO 1308 115 04 Principles of Biology I 4.0 09:00-09:50 MWF SCIE 242 Schnee, F


Aug 27 - Dec 13 06:00-09:00pm TH SCIE 049 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

18 13 L.BIO 1309 116 01 Principles of Biology II 4.0 09:00-09:50 MWF SCIE 128 Shealer, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 08:00-10:50 T SCIE 054 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

18 10 L.BIO 1311 116 03 Principles of Biology II 4.0 09:00-09:50 MWF SCIE 128 Shealer, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 06:00-09:00pm T SCIE 019 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

20 20 L.BIO 1312 240 01 Plant Biology 4.0 10:00-10:50 MWF SCIE 054 Sinha, A Aug 27 - Dec 13 12:30-03:20pm TH SCIE 054

12 10 L.BIO 2113 259 01 Issues Environmental Bio-AH 4.0 12:30-01:20pm MWF SCIE 054 Sinha, A Aug 27 - Dec 13 09:30-11:20 T SCIE 049 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

12 12 L.BIO 2114 259 02 Issues Environmental Bio-AH 4.0 12:30-01:20pm MWF SCIE 054 Sinha, A Aug 27 - Dec 13 12:30-02:20pm T SCIE 049 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

20 18 L.BIO 2115 273 01 Human Genetics-HV 3.0 01:30-02:20pm WF SCIE 049 Schnee, F Aug 27 - Dec 13 01:30-03:20pm M SCIE 049 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.PHI-317-01 Clustered with L.PHI 1827 317 01 Ethics & New Genetics-HV

12 10 L.BIO 1314 279 01 Exp Design/Biostat-AH 3.0 12:30-01:20pm MWF HENN 350 Shealer, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 02:30-04:20pm M SCIE 019 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

12 10 L.BIO 1315 279 02 Exp Design/Biostat-AH 3.0 12:30-01:20pm MWF HENN 350 Shealer, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 02:30-04:20pm W SCIE 019 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

12 11 L.BIO 1317 279 03 Exp Design/Biostat-AH 3.0 12:30-01:20pm MWF HENN 350 Shealer, D


Aug 27 - Dec 13 02:00-03:50pm TH SCIE 019 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

12 5 L.BIO 2320 279 04 Exp Design/Biostat-AH 3.0 12:30-01:20pm MWF HENN 350 Wenny, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 02:00-03:50pm TH SCIE 014 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

12 11 L.BIO 2280 345 02 Neurobiology 4.0 09:00-09:50 MWF SCIE 014 Jarcho,M Aug 27 - Dec 13 03:30-05:20pm T SCIE 014

25 27 L.BIO 1318 389 01 Junior Seminar 1.0 03:30-04:20pm M SCIE 128 Cooper, K Aug 27 - Dec 13 BIO & BIO RESEARCH MAJORS ONLY

10 1 L.BIO 2394 398 01 Empirical Research 1.0 ARR ARR ARR Cooper, K Aug 27 - Dec 13 Instructor Signature Required

10 9 L.BIO 1319 400 01 Senior Thesis Research 1.0 ARR ARR ARR Schnee, F Aug 27 - Dec 13

5 1 L.BIO 2405 401 01 Honors Senior Thesis Research 1.0 ARR Schnee, F Aug 27 - Dec 13

16 17 L.BIO 1320 420 01 Vertebrate Physiology 4.0 12:30-01:20pm MWF SCIE 134 Reyerson,D / Davis, T Aug 27 - Dec 13 02:30-04:20pm T SCIE 134

16 17 L.BIO 1321 420 02 Vertebrate Physiology 4.0 12:30-01:20pm MWF SCIE 134 Reyerson,D / Davis, T Aug 27 - Dec 13 02:30-04:20pm W SCIE 134

25 24 L.BUS 1062 230 01 Prin of Management 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH HOFF 311 Collins, R Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

25 24 L.BUS 1063 230 02 Prin of Management 3.0 12:30-01:50pm TTH HOFF 340 Gambrall, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS


25 26 L.BUS 1064 240 01 Principles of Marketing 3.0 09:00-09:50 MWF HOFF 311 Steidinger, G Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

25 26 L.BUS 1065 240 02 Principles of Marketing 3.0 11:00-12:20pm WF HOFF 312 Marzofka, P Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

25 21 L.BUS 1066 250 01 Business Statistics 3.0 09:00-09:50 MWF HOFF 111 Graham, H Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

25 24 L.BUS 1067 250 02 Business Statistics 3.0 10:00-10:50 MWF HOFF 111 Graham, H Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

25 25 L.BUS 1068 317 01 Business Law I 3.0 09:00-09:50 MWF HOFF 340 Schleicher, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

25 24 L.BUS 1069 317 02 Business Law I 3.0 10:00-10:50 MWF HOFF 340 Schleicher, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

27 26 L.BUS 1070 331 01 Organizational Behavior 3.0 06:00-09:00pm W HOFF 312 Gambrall, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

25 16 L.BUS 1071 335 01 Human Resource Management 3.0 08:00-09:20 TTH HOFF 312 Collins, R Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

25 19 L.BUS 1072 343 01 Marketing Management 3.0 12:30-01:50pm TTH HOFF 312 Marzofka, P Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

25 23 L.BUS 1073 345 01 Retail Administration 3.0 12:30-01:20pm MWF HOFF 312 Steidinger, G Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

25 24 L.BUS 1074 349 01 Consumer Behavior 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH HOFF 312 Steidinger, G Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS


25 26 L.BUS 1050 350 01 Principles of Finance 3.0 08:00-08:50 MWF HOFF 112 Upstrom, J Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

25 24 L.BUS 1051 350 02 Principles of Finance 3.0 09:00-09:50 MWF HOFF 112 Upstrom, J Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

25 20 L.BUS 1075 350 03 Principles of Finance 3.0 03:30-04:50pm TTH HOFF 311 Keyes, M Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

25 10 L.BUS 1076 352 01 Investments 3.0 12:30-01:50pm TTH HOFF 311 Keyes, M Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

25 10 L.BUS 1085 358 01 LIFE Portfolio Application I 3.0 02:30-03:50pm MW HOFF 311 Keyes, M Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS INSTRUCTOR PERMISSION REQUIRED

25 23 L.BUS 1077 379 01 Rise Fall of Celtic Tiger-AC 3.0 10:00-10:50 MWF WAHL 101 Hitchcock, W Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

10 1 L.BUS 2402 394 01 Business Internship 3.0 ARR ARR ARR Sturm, K Aug 27 - Dec 13 Instructor Signature Required NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

25 24 L.BUS 1078 433 01 Global Leadership 3.0 12:30-01:50pm TTH HOFF 111 Graham, H Aug 27 - Dec 13

30 30 L.BUS 1079 447 01 Marketing Research 3.0 09:00-09:50 MWF KEAN 009 Marzofka, P Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

25 19 L.BUS 1052 451 01 Intermed Financial Management 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH HOFF 340 Upstrom, J Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

25 10 L.BUS 1086 458 01 LIFE Portfolio Application II 3.0 02:30-03:50pm MW HOFF 311 Keyes, M Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS INSTRUCTOR PERMISSION REQUIRED


24 23 L.CHE 1322 111 01 General Chemistry I 4.0 12:30-01:20pm MWF SCIE 252 Speckhard, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 08:00-10:50 TH SCIE 245 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

24 12 L.CHE 1323 111 02 General Chemistry I 4.0 10:00-10:50 MWF SCIE 242 Binz, C Aug 27 - Dec 13 01:30-04:20pm W SCIE 245 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

24 23 L.CHE 2116 111 03 General Chemistry I 4.0 10:00-10:50 MWF SCIE 242 Binz, C Aug 27 - Dec 13 08:00-10:50 T SCIE 245 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

24 18 L.CHE 2117 111 04 General Chemistry I 4.0 12:30-01:20pm MWF SCIE 245 Moser,A Aug 27 - Dec 13 12:30-03:20pm T SCIE 245 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

24 14 L.CHE 2118 111 05 General Chemistry I 4.0 10:00-10:50 MWF SCIE 245 Moser,A Aug 27 - Dec 13 12:30-03:20pm TH SCIE 245 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

15 11 L.CHE 1329 225 01 Quantitative Analysis 4.0 01:30-04:50pm T SCIE 242 Binz, C Aug 27 - Dec 13 12:30-04:50pm TH SCIE 242

24 20 L.CHE 1330 233 01 Organic Chemistry I 4.0 08:00-08:50 MWF SCIE 128 Oostendorp, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 08:00-10:50 T SCIE 142

24 12 L.CHE 1331 233 02 Organic Chemistry I 4.0 08:00-08:50 MWF SCIE 128 Oostendorp, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 12:30-03:20pm T SCIE 142

25 25 L.CHE 1332 260 01 Chemistry of Art-AH 4.0 11:00-12:20pm WF SCIE 128 Oostendorp, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 12:30-02:20pm W SCIE 142 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION CAN'T REG IF TOOK L.CHE-203

25 22 L.CHE 1333 262 01 Globl Warming-Fact/Fiction-AH 4.0 08:00-08:50 MWF SCIE 252 Maslowsky, E Aug 27 - Dec 13 09:00-10:50 TH SCIE 252 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION


25 25 L.CHE 1334 262 02 Globl Warming-Fact/Fiction-HV 4.0 11:00-12:20pm WF SCIE 252 Maslowsky, E Aug 27 - Dec 13 01:30-03:20pm TH SCIE 252 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.PHI-313-01 Clustered with L.PHI 1826 313 01 Environmental Ethics-HV

20 15 L.CHE 1335 335 01 Biochemistry 4.0 09:00-09:50 MWF SCIE 134 Speckhard, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 08:00-10:50 T SCIE 137

20 12 L.CHE 2210 335 02 Biochemistry 3.0 09:00-09:50 MWF SCIE 133 Speckhard, D Aug 27 - Dec 13

0 0 L.CHE 2351 335L 01 Biochemistry Lab 1.0 08:00-10:50 T SCIE 137 Speckhard, D Aug 27 - Dec 13

20 7 L.CHE 1337 389 01 Junior Seminar 1.0 03:30-04:20pm F SCIE 128 Speckhard, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 03:30-04:20pm F SCIE 125

20 2 L.CHE 1338 490 01 Senior Thesis 1.0 03:30-04:20pm F SCIE 128 Oostendorp, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 03:30-04:20pm F SCIE 125 Chemistry and Biochemistry Majors

15 2 L.CHE 1339 491 01 Research 1.0 ARR ARR ARR Maslowsky, E Aug 27 - Dec 13

15 0 L.CHE 1340 491 02 Research 2.0 ARR ARR ARR Binz, C Aug 27 - Dec 13

15 1 L.CHE 1341 491 03 Research 3.0 ARR ARR ARR Oostendorp, D Aug 27 - Dec 13

15 0 L.CHE 1342 491 04 Research 4.0 ARR ARR ARR Speckhard, D Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 16 L.CIT 1080 110 01 Computing & Info Tech Basics 3.0 01:30-02:20pm MWF HOFF 112 Kerkenbush, R Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES


25 20 L.CIT 1503 110 02 Computing & Info Tech Basics 3.0 10:00-10:50 MWF HENN 270 Thompson, M Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

25 20 L.CIT 1275 110 03 Computing & Info Tech Basics 3.0 09:00-09:50 MWF HOFF 511 Mauss, A Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

25 22 L.CIT 1276 110 04 Computing & Info Tech Basics 3.0 10:00-10:50 MWF HOFF 511 Mauss, A Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

25 22 L.CIT 1504 115 01 Programming & Design Basics 4.0 12:30-01:20pm MTWTHF HENN 250 Litka, B Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 19 L.CIT 1285 217 01 Network Management 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH ARCE 102 Mauss, A Aug 27 - Dec 13

16 14 L.CIT 1505 219 01 Computer Organiz/Architecture 4.0 09:00-09:50 MWF HENN 350 Neebel, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 02:00-03:50pm TH SCIE 231

16 8 L.CIT 2321 219 02 Computer Organiz/Architecture 4.0 09:00-09:50 MWF HENN 350 Neebel, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 12:00-01:50pm TH SCIE 231

10 4 L.CIT 2315 295 01 Linear Programming 3.0 12:30-01:20pm MWF HENN 470 Thompson, M Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 7 L.CIT 1081 321 01 Data Analysis 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH HOFF 112 Hitchcock, W Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 21 L.CIT 1082 322 01 Web 1 Basic HTML Authoring 1.0 06:00-09:00pm T ARCE 402 Hitchcock, W Aug 27 - Sep 25

25 17 L.CIT 1083 323 01 Web 2 Adv HTML Authoring 1.0 06:00-09:00pm T ARCE 402 Hitchcock, W Oct 2 - Oct 30

25 17 L.CIT 1084 324 01 Web 3 Site Development/Admin 1.0 06:00-09:00pm T ARCE 402 Hitchcock, W Nov 6 - Dec 11

20 23 L.CIT 1508 325 01 Algorithm Design & Analysis 3.0 08:00-08:50 MWF HENN 250 Thompson, M Aug 27 - Dec 13


10 1 L.CIT 2388 398 01 Empirical Research 3.0 ARR ARR ARR Neebel, D Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 24 L.COM 1098 131 01 Intro Mass Communication 3.0 09:00-09:50 MWF HOFF 412 Hinton, M Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

25 18 L.COM 1099 131 02 Intro Mass Communication 3.0 12:30-01:20pm MWF HOFF 111 Hinton, M Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

25 25 L.COM 1100 131 03 Intro Mass Communication 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH KEAN 011 Hinton, M Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

14 12 L.COM 1102 158 01 Intro TV Production 3.0 12:30-02:20pm TTH HOFF 211 Schaefer, C Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

20 2 L.COM 1104 159 01 Mock Trials 1.0 06:30-08:30pm M HOFF 411 Merkel,D Aug 27 - Oct 12

20 1 L.COM 1105 159 02 Mock Trials 1.0 06:30-08:30pm M HOFF 411 Merkel,D Oct 22 - Dec 13

16 10 L.COM 1106 164 01 Digital Imaging 3.0 12:30-01:50pm TTH HOFF 435 Pisarik, P Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

25 19 L.COM 1111 190 01 Communication Theory 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH HOFF 411 Sullivan, M Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

10 0 L.COM 1107 193 01 Theatre Practicum 1.0 ARR ARR ARR Donald, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 INSTRUCTOR PERMISSION REQUIRED ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES




25 25 L.COM 1113 201 01 Prin of Public Relations 3.0 10:00-10:50 MWF HOFF 412 Harris, M Aug 27 - Dec 13

20 20 L.COM 1114 202 01 Public Relations Writing 3.0 12:30-01:50pm TTH HOFF 412 Hinton, M Aug 27 - Dec 13

20 19 L.COM 1115 225 01 Media Writing 3.0 10:00-10:50 MWF HOFF 411 Kohl, P Aug 27 - Dec 13

14 13 L.COM 1116 257 01 Electronic Field Production 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH HOFF 211 Schaefer, C Aug 27 - Dec 13

20 3 L.COM 1117 259 01 Mock Trials 1.0 03:30-06:30pm F ARCE 402 Merkel,D Aug 27 - Oct 12


22 3 L.COM 2123 259 21 Mock Trials 1.0 03:30-06:30pm F ARCE 402 Merkel,D Oct 22 - Dec 13

16 15 L.COM 1119 264 01 Desktop Publishing 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH HOFF 435 Pisarik, P Aug 27 - Dec 13 PR Majors Only

25 14 L.COM 1120 280 01 News Analysis 3.0 12:30-01:20pm MWF HOFF 412 Pisarik, P Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 25 L.COM 1121 285 01 World Cinema-CA 3.0 01:30-04:20pm M SCIE 242 Kohl, P Aug 27 - Dec 13 01:30-03:30pm W SCIE 242 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.HIS-282-01 Clustered with L.HIS 2166 282 01 History as Film: Africa-CA

14 4 L.COM 1122 293 01 Media Studies Practicum Staff 1.0 09:00-09:50 MWF HOFF 211 Schaefer, C Aug 27 - Dec 13 05:00-07:30pm W HOFF 211


25 21 L.COM 1124 330 01 Busn Speaking & Writing 3.0 08:00-09:20 TTH HOFF 412 Neuhaus, M Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 20 L.COM 1125 330 02 Busn Speaking & Writing 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH HOFF 412 Neuhaus, M Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 25 L.COM 1126 351 01 Adv Public Relations Writing 3.0 10:00-10:50 MWF HOFF 329 Hinton, M Aug 27 - Dec 13



20 18 L.COM 1129 380 01 Persuasion 3.0 09:00-09:50 MWF HOFF 411 Sullivan, M Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 22 L.COM 1130 390 01 Media Criticism 3.0 12:30-01:50pm TTH HOFF 512 Kohl, P Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 24 L.COM 1131 393 01 Communication Law 3.0 02:30-03:50pm MW HOFF 512 Neuhaus, M Aug 27 - Dec 13

10 1 L.COM 2400 394 01 Internship 2.0 ARR ARR ARR Hinton, M Aug 27 - Dec 13 Instructor Signature Required PRIOR APPROVAL OF CHAIRPERSON REQ

16 9 L.COM 1132 395 01 Topics: Flash 3.0 01:30-02:20pm MWF HOFF 435 Myers, S Aug 27 - Dec 13



30 27 L.COM 1135 485 01 Communication Research 3.0 12:30-01:20pm MWF HOFF 512 Harris, M Aug 27 - Dec 13 PR & MEDIA STUDIES MAJORS ONLY SENIORS ONLY


14 5 L.COM 1136 493 01 Media Studies Practicum Staff 1.0 09:00-09:50 MWF HOFF 211 Schaefer, C Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 19 L.CRJ 1616 120 01 Intro to Criminal Justice 3.0 08:00-09:20 TTH HENN 350 Tentis, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

25 24 L.CRJ 1617 120 02 Intro to Criminal Justice 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH HENN 350 Tentis, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

30 12 L.CRJ 1618 224 01 Criminal Law 3.0 06:00-09:00pm W HENN 070 Corken, C Aug 27 - Dec 13

30 24 L.CRJ 1619 252 01 Criminology 3.0 09:00-09:50 MWF WAHL 110 Decker, L Aug 27 - Dec 13

30 23 L.CRJ 1620 253 01 Corrections 3.0 10:00-10:50 MWF HENN 250 Bell, V Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 24 L.CRJ 1622 320 01 Juvenile Delinq & Justice 3.0 08:00-08:50 MWF HENN 480 Decker, L Aug 27 - Dec 13

10 1 L.CRJ 2229 398 01 Empirical Research 3.0 ARR ARR ARR Bell, V Aug 27 - Dec 13 INSTRUCTOR PERMISSION REQUIRED

20 10 L.CRJ 1623 480 01 Senior Seminar 3.0 09:00-09:50 MWF HENN 470 Bell, V Aug 27 - Dec 13

10 1 L.CRJ 1624 490 01 Field Experience 3.0 02:00-02:50pm T ARR ARR Decker, L Aug 27 - Dec 13 CRIMINAL JUSTICE MAJORS ONLY FLD INSTRUCTION COORD PERMISSION








15 14 L.CTL 1938 100 01 The Once & Future Church-FI 3.0 02:30-03:50pm MW SMYT 102 Wathier, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 INCOMING FY STUDENTS ONLY CTL STUDENTS ONLY NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

21 20 L.CTL 1895 274 01 All for One, One for All?-IV 3.0 12:30-01:20pm MWF ARCE 402 Lorenz, A Aug 27 - Dec 13 CTL STUDENTS ONLY MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.CTL-277-01 Clustered with L.CTL 1939 277 01 Belief,Unbelief&Good Life-IV

21 20 L.CTL 1939 277 01 Belief,Unbelief&Good Life-IV 3.0 11:00-12:20pm TTH WAHL 143 Wathier, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 CTL STUDENTS ONLY MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.CTL-274-01 Clustered with L.CTL 1895 274 01 All for One, One for All?-IV

25 10 L.CTL 2237 490 01 Leadership Sem for Soc Justice 2.0 06:00-08:00pm TH SMYT 102 Wathier, D Aug 27 - Oct 12 CTL STUDENTS ONLY

30 19 L.ECO 1867 221 01 Prin of Microeconomics 3.0 09:00-09:50 MWF HOFF 512 Smith, J Aug 27 - Dec 13


30 29 L.ECO 1868 221 02 Prin of Microeconomics 3.0 10:00-10:50 MWF HOFF 512 O'Connor, D Aug 27 - Dec 13

30 30 L.ECO 1869 221 03 Prin of Microeconomics 3.0 12:30-01:20pm MWF HOFF 511 Smith, J Aug 27 - Dec 13

30 26 L.ECO 1870 222 01 Prin of Macroeconomics 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH HOFF 512 Smith, J Aug 27 - Dec 13

30 15 L.ECO 1871 222 02 Prin of Macroeconomics 3.0 11:00-12:20pm WF HOFF 512 Maskay, B Aug 27 - Dec 13

30 16 L.ECO 1872 222 03 Prin of Macroeconomics 3.0 01:30-02:20pm MWF HOFF 512 Maskay, B Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 15 L.ECO 2208 321 01 Intermed Microecon Theory 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH HOFF 511 O'Connor, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

25 9 L.ECO 1873 345 01 Monetary Theory/Policy 3.0 02:30-03:50pm TTH HOFF 111 Maskay, B Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

25 15 L.ECO 1874 349 01 Government & Business 3.0 01:00-02:20pm TTH HOFF 136 O'Connor, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

25 3 L.ECO 2369 395 01 Crimes, Econ & Urban Issues 3.0 ARR ARR ARR Finnegan, F Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 24 L.EDU 1387 200 01 Foundations of Education 2.0 09:00-09:50 MW WAHL 109 Welsh,H Aug 27 - Dec 13 MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.EDU-205 Community Based Learning Required-Contact Instructor for Info

25 24 L.EDU 1388 205 01 Foundations/Special Education 2.0 10:00-10:50 MW WAHL 110 Kruse,A Aug 27 - Dec 13 NO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS IN FALL MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.EDU-200 Community Based Learning Required-Contact


21 19 L.EDU 1389 221 01 Learning Envir & Social Intera 2.0 09:00-09:50 MW WAHL 143 Kane, J Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS L.EDU 200 RECOMMENDED

20 16 L.EDU 1390 221 02 Learning Envir & Social Intera 2.0 02:30-03:20pm MW WAHL 143 Kane, J Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS L.EDU 200 RECOMMENDED

25 22 L.EDU 1394 230 01 Children & Young Adult Lit-AA 3.0 12:30-01:50pm TTH WAHL 110 Kruse,A Aug 27 - Dec 13

15 8 L.EDU 1391 232 01 C/I in PE/Health/Wellness 1.0 04:30-05:20pm W WAHL 109 Heinle, S Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.EDU-233*L.EDU-234

15 8 L.EDU 1392 233 01 C/I in Performing Arts 1.0 02:20-03:20pm W WAHL 109 Heinle, S Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.EDU-232*L.EDU-234

15 8 L.EDU 1393 234 01 C/I in Visual Arts 1.0 03:30-04:20pm W WAHL 109 Heinle, S Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.EDU-232*L.EDU-233

25 25 L.EDU 1399 255 01 Social Studies & Curr & Instr 2.0 12:30-02:20pm T WAHL 143 Monhardt, R Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.EDU-256

25 25 L.EDU 1400 256 01 Science Curriculum & Instr 3.0 12:30-03:20pm TH WAHL 145 Monhardt, R Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.EDU-255

25 26 L.EDU 2127 265 01 Multicultural Education-AC 3.0 08:00-09:20 TTH WAHL 143 Kane, J Aug 27 - Dec 13

20 17 L.EDU 1403 321 01 Infant/Toddlers Curriculum 3.0 12:30-02:20pm MWF WAHL 124 Fabricius, R Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS


MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.EDU-323

20 17 L.EDU 1404 323 01 Preprimary Curriculum 3.0 03:45-06:35pm W WAHL 110 Steines David,T Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.EDU-321

20 10 L.EDU 1405 327 01 Dev Curr & Methods Birth-Age 5 3.0 08:00-09:20 TTH WAHL 110 Kruse,A Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS

1 1 L.EDU 2356 327 02 Dev Curr & Methods Birth-Age 5 3.0 ARR Kruse,A Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS

15 13 L.EDU 1406 331 01 Curr/Instr in Lang Arts 3.0 08:00-09:20 TTH WAHL 145 Salyer, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.EDU-332

15 13 L.EDU 1407 332 01 Beginning Reading 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH WAHL 145 Salyer, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.EDU-331

15 15 L.EDU 1408 333 01 Curr/Instr in Math 3.0 03:30-07:30pm M FULT SCH Nugent, C Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS Community Based Learning Required-Contact Instructor for Info

15 12 L.EDU 1413 334 01 Intermed Clinical Exper K-8 1.0 08:00-10:50 TTH WAHL 124 Monhardt, R Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS Community Based Learning Required-Contact Instructor for Info

15 8 L.EDU 1414 334 02 Intermed Clinical Exper K-8 1.0 ARR Monhardt, R Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS Community Based Learning Required-Contact

15 14 L.EDU 1415 337 01 Reading Across the Curriculum 3.0 12:30-01:50pm WF WAHL 145 Salyer, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS


20 3 L.EDU 1416 339 01 Differentiated Instr 5-12 2.0 08:00-09:50 M WAHL 145 Scheuerell, S Aug 27 - Dec 13 MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.EDU-350-01*L.EDU-350L-01

20 10 L.EDU 1417 340 01 Differentiated Instruction K-8 2.0 12:30-02:20pm M WAHL 145 Kruse,A Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS

20 11 L.EDU 1418 343 01 Assess Exceptionality Pre K-12 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH WAHL 110 Kane, J Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS

20 3 L.EDU 1419 350 01 Gen Sec Methods of Tching 3.0 07:45-09:15 WF WAHL 124 Scheuerell, S Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.EDU-350L-01*L.EDU-339-01

20 3 L.EDU 1420 350L 01 Intermed Clinical Exper 5-12 1.0 09:25-10:55 WF WAHL 145 Scheuerell, S Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.EDU-350-01*L.EDU-339-01

20 9 L.EDU 1421 353 01 Special Sec Methods: Math 3.0 09:00-09:50 WF HENN 450 Keller, R Aug 27 - Dec 13 02:30-03:30pm F HENN 250 ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS

20 5 L.EDU 2266 354 01 Special Sec Methods: Science 3.0 05:30-08:20pm T WAHL 145 Monhardt,L Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS

20 8 L.EDU 1422 355 01 Special S Methods: Soc Studies 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH WAHL 143 Scheuerell, S Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS

20 15 L.EDU 1423 357 01 Reading in Sec Schools 3.0 12:30-01:50pm TTH WAHL 101 Welsh,H Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS

20 19 L.EDU 1424 361 01 Practicum/Instr Read Problem 3.0 03:30-04:50pm TTH WAHL 110 Lansing, S Aug 27 - Dec 13 Community Based Learning Required-Contact Instructor for Info


30 0 L.EDU 1425 411 01 Student Tch Elem Music 5.0 ARR Staff Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS

30 0 L.EDU 1426 412 01 Student Tch Sec Music 5.0 ARR Staff Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS

30 2 L.EDU 1427 416 01 Student Tch Elem Physical Educ 5.0 ARR Fabricius, R Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS Community Based Learning Required-Contact Instructor for Info

30 0 L.EDU 1428 417 01 Student Tch Sec Physical Educ 5.0 ARR Fabricius, R Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS Community Based Learning Required-Contact Instructor for Info

30 2 L.EDU 1429 418 01 Student Tch Sec P E & Health 5.0 ARR Fabricius, R Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS Community Based Learning Required-Contact Instructor for Info

30 1 L.EDU 1430 424 01 Stud Tch Early Child Sp Ed 0-5 5.0 ARR Fabricius, R Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.EDU-426

30 2 L.EDU 1431 425 01 Student Tch Early Child 0-5 5.0 ARR Fabricius, R Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.EDU-426

30 3 L.EDU 1432 426 01 Student Tch Primary K-3 ECE 5.0 ARR Fabricius, R Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.EDU-425*L.EDU-424

30 3 L.EDU 1433 432 01 Student Tch Elem School 10.0 ARR Fabricius, R Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS

30 5 L.EDU 1434 441 01 Student Tch Inst Strat I K-8 5.0 ARR Fabricius, R Aug 27 - Dec 13


ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.EDU-442

30 5 L.EDU 1435 442 01 Student Tch El Ed Inst Strat I 5.0 ARR Fabricius, R Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.EDU-441

30 2 L.EDU 1436 443 01 Student Tch Inst Strat I 5-12 5.0 ARR Fabricius, R Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.EDU-444

30 2 L.EDU 1437 444 01 Student Tch Sec W Inst Strat I 5.0 ARR Fabricius, R Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.EDU-443

30 5 L.EDU 1438 452 01 Student Tch Secondary School 10.0 ARR Fabricius, R Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS

40 20 L.EDU 1439 490 01 Capstone Seminar/Portfolio-PJ 2.0 04:00-05:30pm T WAHL 101 Welsh,H Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS

1 1 L.EDU 2357 495 01 Topics: Field Practicum 1.0 ARR Kruse,A Aug 27 - Dec 13 Instructor Signature Required NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

10 1 L.EDU 2496 495 02 Field Practicum 3.0 ARR ARR ARR Kruse,A Aug 27 - Dec 13 Instructor Signature Required NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

30 1 L.EDU 2516 691 01 Problem Based Learning Design 3.0 ARR ARR ARR Archdiocese Crses Aug 27 - Dec 13 Instructor Signature Required GRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY

20 12 L.EGR 1510 105 01 Intro to Engineering I 3.0 08:00-08:50 M SCIE 118 Merkel, C Aug 27 - Dec 13 08:00-09:20 TTH SCIE 118 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

24 21 L.EGR 1511 232 01 Engineering Dynamics 3.0 01:30-02:20pm MWF SCIE 118 Merkel, C


Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

20 17 L.EGR 1512 335 01 Electric Circuits 4.0 02:30-03:20pm MWF HENN 180 Neebel, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 02:00-03:50pm T SCIE 231

10 2 L.EGR 2381 398 01 Empirical Research 1.0 ARR ARR ARR Merkel, C Aug 27 - Dec 13

20 8 L.EGR 1514 488 01 Engineering Topics/Review 1.0 10:00-10:50 T SCIE 118 Merkel, C Aug 27 - Dec 13

10 8 L.EGR 1513 490 01 Capstone Engineer Design I 4.0 09:00-09:50 MWF SCIE 118 Merkel, C Aug 27 - Dec 13

21 21 L.ENG 1677 111 01 Critical Writing-FW 3.0 11:00-12:20pm WF HOFF 412 Stone, S Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

21 19 L.ENG 1678 111 02 Critical Writing-FW 3.0 02:30-03:50pm MW HOFF 111 Pollock, J Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

21 20 L.ENG 1679 111 03 Critical Writing-FW 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH HOFF 329 Strickler, B Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

21 20 L.ENG 1680 111 04 Critical Writing-FW 3.0 12:30-01:50pm TTH HOFF 212 Merrill, J Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

21 19 L.ENG 1681 111 05 Critical Writing-FW 3.0 02:00-03:20pm TTH HOFF 212 Merrill, J Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

25 11 L.ENG 1682 222 01 World Lit Renaissance to Modn 3.0 12:30-01:50pm TTH HOFF 411 VanLaningham, E Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 24 L.ENG 2129 232 01 The Novel-CA 3.0 11:00-12:20pm TTH HOFF 411 Wilson, R Aug 27 - Dec 13


NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.HIS-249-01 Clustered with L.HIS 1882 249 01 Russian Civilization-CA

25 24 L.ENG 1683 233 01 Drama-AA 3.0 11:00-12:20pm WF HOFF 111 Merrill, J Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

25 24 L.ENG 1685 235 01 The Revisionist Superhero-AA 3.0 11:00-12:20pm WF HOFF 112 Jablonsky, W Aug 27 - Dec 13

15 12 L.ENG 1686 238 01 Poetry Writing 3.0 10:00-10:50 MWF HOFF 347 Pollock, J Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 24 L.ENG 1687 285 01 Modn Irish Culture & Lit 3.0 09:00-09:50 MWF HOFF 212 Auge, A Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

25 21 L.ENG 1688 290 01 Canadian Imagination-AC 3.0 01:30-02:20pm MWF HOFF 311 Pollock, J Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

25 13 L.ENG 1689 324 01 African American Literature 3.0 12:30-01:50pm TTH HOFF 511 Stone, S Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 14 L.ENG 1690 330 01 Am Lit: Modn Prose 1900-1945 3.0 06:00-09:00pm T HOFF 412 Strickler, B Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 15 L.ENG 1691 337 01 Medieval/Renaiss British Lit 3.0 02:30-03:50pm MW HOFF 112 Merrill, J Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

25 7 L.ENG 1692 346 01 Major Figure: John Fowles 3.0 06:30-09:30pm W HOFF 412 Wilson, R Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

25 10 L.ENG 1693 355 01 English Novel 1800-1840 3.0 12:30-01:20pm MWF HOFF 340 VanLaningham, E Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

15 10 L.ENG 1694 383 01 Nonfiction Lit & Workshop 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH HOFF 134 Koch, K Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS


15 9 L.ENG 1695 384 01 Adv Fiction Writing 3.0 06:30-09:30pm M HOFF 412 Jablonsky, W Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

15 9 L.ENG 1696 468 01 Literary Criticism 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH KEAN 009 Auge, A Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

15 12 L.ENG 1697 468 02 Literary Criticism 3.0 12:30-01:50pm TTH ARCE 402 Auge, A Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

20 19 L.ENG 1698 490 01 Senior Literature Capstone 1.0 04:00-04:50pm W HOFF 212 Auge, A Aug 27 - Dec 13 INSTRUCTOR PERMISSION REQUIRED

25 9 L.ENG 2519 490D 01 Senior Lit Capstone Defense 0.0 ARR Auge, A Aug 27 - Dec 13 Need L.ENG-490 MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.ENG-490

15 15 L.ENG 1699 491 01 Senior Thesis Seminar 3.0 02:00-03:20pm TTH HOFF 134 Koch, K Aug 27 - Dec 13

15 6 L.ENG 2520 491D 01 Senior Thesis Seminar Defense 0.0 ARR Koch, K Aug 27 - Dec 13 Need L.ENG-491 MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.ENG-491

10 4 L.ENG 2330 498 01 Directed Readings 1-3 ARR ARR ARR Jablonsky, W Aug 27 - Dec 13 Instructor Signature Required

25 2 L.EXP 2350 000 01 Study Abroad: Botswana 12.0 ARR Kehren, M Aug 27 - Dec 13

10 3 L.EXP 2346 294 01 Dubuque Internships 1-11 ARR Finnegan, F Aug 27 - Dec 13

10 3 L.EXP 2385 294 02 Dubuque Internship 2.0 ARR ARR ARR Finnegan, F Aug 27 - Dec 13

10 0 L.EXP 2409 294 03 Dubuque Internship 3.0 ARR ARR ARR Finnegan, F


Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 7 L.EXP 2347 370 01 Chicago Ctr Preparation 1.0 ARR Finnegan, F Aug 27 - Dec 13 CHICAGO/WASHINGTN CTR STUDNTS ONLY

25 7 L.EXP 2348 372 01 Chicago Ctr Internship 6.0 ARR Finnegan, F Aug 27 - Dec 13 CHICAGO/WASHINGTN CTR STUDNTS ONLY

25 7 L.EXP 2349 374 01 Chicago Ctr Service Learning 2.0 ARR Mauss, A Aug 27 - Dec 13 CHICAGO/WASHINGTN CTR STUDNTS ONLY

20 13 L.EXP 2176 395 01 Ireland Pre-Departure 1.0 06:00-08:00pm W HENN 270 Grinde, L / Kehren, M Aug 27 - Dec 13

20 22 L.GRS 2180 395 01 Mythology & the Cosmos-HI 3.0 11:00-12:20pm TTH ARCE 402 Smith, C Aug 27 - Dec 13 MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.PHY-208-01 Clustered with L.PHY 1538 208 01 Astronomy-HI

30 22 L.HIS 1878 121 01 U S History to 1877 3.0 09:00-09:50 MWF ARCE 402 Salvaterra, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

25 16 L.HIS 1879 140 01 Early Modern Europe to 1750 3.0 10:00-10:50 MWF HOFF 112 Lorenz, A Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

25 11 L.HIS 2178 222 01 Archaeology & World Prehistory 3.0 05:30-08:30pm TH HOFF 111 P. Millhouse Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 24 L.HIS 1882 249 01 Russian Civilization-CA 3.0 11:00-12:20pm WF HOFF 212 Zhu, L Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.ENG-232-01 Clustered with L.ENG 2129 232 01 The Novel-CA

25 25 L.HIS 2166 282 01 History as Film: Africa-CA 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH ARCE 402 Kehren, M Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.COM-285-01 Clustered with L.COM 1121 285 01 World Cinema-CA

25 13 L.HIS 1883 306 01 Historians of Greece & Rome 3.0 02:30-03:50pm MW HOFF 329 Smith, C


Aug 27 - Dec 13

27 23 L.HIS 1884 349 01 Second World War 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH KEAN 008 Zhu, L Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

10 3 L.HIS 2228 398 01 Empirical Research 3.0 ARR ARR ARR Zhu, L Aug 27 - Dec 13 ADVISOR CONSENT REQUIRED

10 2 L.HIS 2303 398 02 Empirical Research 1.0 ARR ARR ARR Eby, J Aug 27 - Dec 13

10 0 L.HIS 2332 398 03 Empirical Research 4.0 ARR ARR ARR Garoutte, L Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 9 L.HIS 1885 431 01 Revolutionary Era U S 3.0 12:30-01:50pm TTH HOFF 134 Salvaterra, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

20 14 L.HIS 1886 489 01 Seminar for Majors 3.0 02:30-03:50pm MW HOFF 411 Eby, J Aug 27 - Dec 13 JR & SR HISTORY MAJORS ONLY

20 16 L.HIS 1888 490 01 Research Seminar 3.0 06:00-09:00pm T HOFF 111 Eby, J / Zhu, L Aug 27 - Dec 13 HISTORY MAJORS ONLY

22 23 L.HON 1923 100 02 Memory and Identity-FI 3.0 02:30-03:50pm MW WAHL 101 Osheim, A Aug 27 - Dec 13 INCOMING FY STUDENTS ONLY ONLY STUDENTS IN HONORS PROGRAM NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

22 23 L.HON 1980 100 03 Modern Music Festivals-FI 3.0 02:30-03:50pm MW HENN 470 Cavanagh, B Aug 27 - Dec 13 INCOMING FY STUDENTS ONLY ONLY STUDENTS IN HONORS PROGRAM NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

26 25 L.HON 1901 220 01 Democracy/Globl Diversity-MD 3.0 02:30-03:50pm MW HOFF 412 Budzisz, C Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY STUDENTS IN HONORS PROGRAM


NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

25 22 L.HON 2130 220 02 Democracy/Globl Diversity-MD 3.0 02:30-03:50pm MW ARCE 102 Salvaterra, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY STUDENTS IN HONORS PROGRAM NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

25 17 L.HON 2187 274 01 Darwin & His World-AC 3.0 12:30-01:50pm TTH SCIE 128 Cooper, K Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION Registration is open to all students

25 13 L.HON 2186 278 01 Darwin & His World-AI 3.0 12:30-01:50pm TTH SCIE 125 Eby, J Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION Registration is open to all students

50 29 L.HON 2131 290 01 Honors Inquiry 1.0 07:00-09:00pm M WAHL 143 Eby, J Aug 27 - Dec 13

10 6 L.HON 2188 488 01 Abstract and Defense 1.0 ARR ARR ARR Sinha, A Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY STUDENTS IN HONORS PROGRAM

22 13 L.HON 1935 490 01 Honors Service Learning-PJ 3.0 07:00-09:00pm M ARCE 102 Shadle, M Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY STUDENTS IN HONORS PROGRAM NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

1 1 L.HON 2543 490 02 Honors Service Learning-PJ 3.0 ARR Shadle, M Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY STUDENTS IN HONORS PROGRAM NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

20 10 L.INS 1876 489 01 Senior Seminar 3.0 08:00-09:20 TTH ARCE 402 Kehren, M Aug 27 - Dec 13

24 24 L.LIB 1515 100 01 Criminal Minds-FI 3.0 12:30-01:50pm TTH HENN 470 Tentis, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 INCOMING FY STUDENTS ONLY NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

24 25 L.LIB 1516 100 02 Computers in Movies-FI 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH HENN 250 Litka, B


Aug 27 - Dec 13 INCOMING FY STUDENTS ONLY NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

24 25 L.LIB 1615 100 03 Click with Caution-FI 3.0 01:30-02:20pm MWF HENN 450 Bell, V Aug 27 - Dec 13 INCOMING FY STUDENTS ONLY NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

24 24 L.LIB 1709 100 05 (In)Visible Peoples-FI 3.0 11:00-12:20pm WF WAHL 143 McCarthy-Gilmore, K Aug 27 - Dec 13 INCOMING FY STUDENTS ONLY NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

24 24 L.LIB 1710 100 06 Science Fiction-FI 3.0 11:00-12:20pm WF HOFF 311 Strickler, B Aug 27 - Dec 13 INCOMING FY STUDENTS ONLY NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION Community Based Learning Required-Contact Instructor for Info

24 23 L.LIB 1803 100 07 Weird Beliefs-FI 3.0 01:30-02:20pm MWF HENN 180 Bechen, M Aug 27 - Dec 13 INCOMING FY STUDENTS ONLY NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

24 24 L.LIB 1981 100 08 Last Person in the Woods-FI 3.0 09:00-09:50 MWF HENN 270 Grinde, L Aug 27 - Dec 13 INCOMING FY STUDENTS ONLY NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

24 24 L.LIB 1896 100 09 Effects of Disasters-FI 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH HENN 470 Parks, K Aug 27 - Dec 13 INCOMING FY STUDENTS ONLY NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

24 24 L.LIB 1897 100 10 Capitalism, Socialism-FI 3.0 01:30-02:20pm MWF HOFF 411 Smith, J Aug 27 - Dec 13 INCOMING FY STUDENTS ONLY NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

24 22 L.LIB 1898 100 11 Let the Games Begin-FI 3.0 08:00-09:20 TTH HOFF 411 Smith, C Aug 27 - Dec 13 INCOMING FY STUDENTS ONLY NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION


24 22 L.LIB 1982 100 12 The First Immortal-FI 3.0 02:30-03:50pm MW HENN 250 Thompson, K Aug 27 - Dec 13 INCOMING FY STUDENTS ONLY NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

24 25 L.LIB 1983 100 13 Poison or Kool-Aid-FI 3.0 11:00-12:20pm WF HOFF 511 Mauss, A Aug 27 - Dec 13 INCOMING FY STUDENTS ONLY NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

24 24 L.LIB 1984 100 14 Leadership-FI 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH HENN 450 Sazama, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 INCOMING FY STUDENTS ONLY NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

21 20 L.LIB 1669 105 01 College Writing-FW 3.0 11:00-12:20pm WF ARCE 402 Hall, H Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

21 21 L.LIB 1670 105 02 College Writing-FW 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH HOFF 212 Jablonsky, W Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

21 20 L.LIB 1671 105 03 College Writing-FW 3.0 11:00-12:20pm TTH HOFF 212 Jablonsky, W Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

21 19 L.LIB 1672 105 04 College Writing-FW 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH WAHL 109 VanLaningham, E Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

21 22 L.LIB 1673 105 05 College Writing-FW 3.0 12:30-01:50pm TTH HOFF 329 Klapatauskas, K Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

21 19 L.LIB 1674 105 06 College Writing-FW 3.0 12:30-01:50pm TTH HOFF 112 Witthoeft, C Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES


21 20 L.LIB 1675 105 07 College Writing-FW 3.0 02:00-03:20pm TTH HOFF 112 Witthoeft, C Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

19 18 L.LIB 1142 110 01 Public Spking & Group Comm-FS 3.0 08:00-08:50 MWF HOFF 136 Goodman, C Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES


19 19 L.LIB 1144 110 03 Public Spking & Group Comm-FS 3.0 10:00-10:50 MWF HOFF 427 Sullivan, M Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

18 19 L.LIB 1145 110 04 Public Spking & Group Comm-FS 3.0 08:00-09:20 TTH HOFF 427 Sisco,B Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

18 16 L.LIB 1147 110 06 Public Spking & Group Comm-FS 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH HOFF 427 Sisco,B Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

19 19 L.LIB 1178 110 07 Public Spking & Group Comm-FS 3.0 12:30-01:50pm TTH HOFF 427 Donald, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

19 19 L.LIB 1179 110 08 Public Spking & Group Comm-FS 3.0 02:30-03:50pm MW HOFF 427 Merkel,D Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

19 17 L.LIB 1180 110 09 Public Spking & Group Comm-FS 3.0 02:00-03:20pm TTH HOFF 427 Donald, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES



25 21 L.LIB 1830 130 01 Wtnesses to Hope,Heart&Hum-MC 3.0 02:30-03:50pm TTH ARCE 102 Joensen, W Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

25 20 L.LIB 1928 130 02 Seasons of the Sacred-MC 3.0 09:00-09:50 MWF KEAN 008 Pitt, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

25 25 L.LIB 1929 130 03 Seasons of the Sacred-MC 3.0 10:00-10:50 MWF KEAN 011 Pitt, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

25 25 L.LIB 2169 130 04 The Displaced Person-MC 3.0 12:30-01:50pm TTH KEAN 008 Welch, L Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

25 20 L.LIB 2170 130 05 The Displaced Person-MC 3.0 02:00-03:20pm TTH KEAN 008 Welch, L Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

25 25 L.LIB 1832 135 01 Catholicism and Taoism-MC 3.0 02:00-03:20pm TTH KEAN 009 Lammer-Heindel, C Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

22 21 L.LIB 1283 220 01 Democracy/Global Diversity-MD 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH HOFF 111 Lammer, L Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

24 23 L.LIB 1284 220 02 Democracy/Global Diversity-MD 3.0 02:30-03:50pm MW HOFF 312 Collins, R Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

24 24 L.LIB 1676 220 03 Democracy/Global Diversity-MD 3.0 02:30-03:50pm MW HOFF 340 Wilson, R Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

22 21 L.LIB 1833 220 04 Democracy/Global Diversity-MD 3.0 02:30-03:20pm MWF KEAN 011 Lammer-Heindel, C Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION


22 21 L.LIB 1899 220 05 Democracy/Global Diversity-MD 3.0 02:30-03:50pm MW KEAN 008 Zhu, L Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

22 22 L.LIB 1933 220 07 Democracy/Global Diversity-MD 3.0 12:30-01:50pm TTH KEAN 009 Shadle, M Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

22 22 L.LIB 2172 220 08 Democracy/Global Diversity-MD 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH HENN 180 Budzisz, C Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

0 5 L.LIB 2399 245 OL The Irish in America-AC 3.0 ARR Cochran, D Oct 22 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

20 18 L.LIB 2222 305 01 Portfolio-PJ 1.0 05:00-08:00pm M HOFF 329 Sturm, K Aug 27 - Oct 12 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

20 19 L.LIB 2257 305 04 Portfolio-PJ 1.0 06:00-09:00pm M HENN 350 Bell, V Aug 27 - Oct 12 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

20 19 L.LIB 2258 305 05 Portfolio-PJ 1.0 06:00-09:00pm M HENN 250 Parks, K Aug 27 - Oct 12 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

20 19 L.LIB 2260 305 07 Portfolio-PJ 1.0 08:00-08:50 MWF SCIE 049 Cooper, K Aug 27 - Oct 12 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

20 9 L.LIB 2238 305 21 Portfolio-PJ 1.0 06:00-08:00pm TH WAHL 143 Wathier, D Oct 22 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION CTL STUDENTS ONLY

20 16 L.LIB 2259 305 22 Portfolio-PJ 1.0 10:00-10:50 W WAHL 109 McCarthy-Gilmore, K Oct 22 - Dec 7 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

20 16 L.LIB 2262 305 23 Portfolio-PJ 1.0 03:30-04:50pm T HENN 450 Cavanagh, B Oct 22 - Dec 7 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION


25 22 L.MAT 1517 091 01 Intermediate Algebra 4.0 11:00-11:50 TWTHF ARCE 102 Klapatauskas, K Aug 27 - Dec 13 FIRST YEAR ONLY

25 19 L.MAT 1518 091 02 Intermediate Algebra 4.0 12:30-01:20pm MTWF ARCE 102 Klapatauskas, K Aug 27 - Dec 13 FIRST YEAR ONLY

25 23 L.MAT 1519 110 01 Math for Elem Teachers I 4.0 12:30-01:20pm T HENN 270 Willis, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 12:30-01:20pm MWF HENN 180 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

25 19 L.MAT 1520 111 01 Math for Elem Teachers II-FM 4.0 12:30-01:20pm MTWF SCIE 118 Keller, R Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

25 22 L.MAT 1522 113 02 College Algebra I-FM 3.0 01:30-02:20pm MWF HENN 250 Kohlhaas, A Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

25 25 L.MAT 1523 113 03 College Algebra I-FM 3.0 08:00-08:50 MWF HENN 270 Heidenreich, K Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

25 25 L.MAT 1524 115 01 Statistics-FM 4.0 08:00-08:50 MTWF HENN 280 Rissler, M Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

25 18 L.MAT 1525 115 02 Statistics-FM 4.0 11:00-11:50 TWTHF HENN 480 Crook,S Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

25 30 L.MAT 1526 117 01 Pre-Calculus-FM 4.0 11:00-11:50 TWTHF HENN 070 Meyer, J Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

25 22 L.MAT 1527 117 02 Pre-Calculus-FM 4.0 12:30-01:20pm MTWF HENN 070 Meyer, J Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES


25 17 L.MAT 1528 124 01 Finite Mathematics-FM 4.0 08:00-08:50 MTWF HENN 180 Willis, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

25 16 L.MAT 1529 150 01 Calc of One Variable I-FM 4.0 11:00-11:50 TWTHF HENN 270 Kohlhaas, A Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

25 12 L.MAT 1530 150 02 Calc of One Variable I-FM 4.0 11:00-11:50 TWTHF HENN 180 Willis, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

25 12 L.MAT 1531 150 03 Calc of One Variable I-FM 4.0 12:30-01:20pm MTWF HENN 360 Crook,S Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

25 20 L.MAT 1532 160 01 Calc of One Variable II 4.0 11:00-11:50 TWTHF HENN 350 Heidenreich, J Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 11 L.MAT 1533 170 01 Accelerated Calc of One Var-FM 4.0 11:00-11:50 TWTHF HENN 280 Rissler, M Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

25 14 L.MAT 1534 230 01 Discrete Mathematics 3.0 01:30-02:20pm MWF HENN 360 Heidenreich, J Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 8 L.MAT 2211 250 01 Linear Algebra 3.0 10:00-10:50 MWF HENN 480 Heidenreich, J Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 12 L.MAT 1535 260 01 Analytic Geom/Calc III 4.0 08:00-08:50 MTWF HENN 360 Crook,S Aug 27 - Dec 13

10 3 L.MAT 2316 295 01 Linear Programming 3.0 12:30-01:20pm MWF HENN 470 Thompson, M Aug 27 - Dec 13

14 8 L.MAT 1536 390 01 Seminar 1.0 02:30-03:20pm M HENN 360 Rissler, M Aug 27 - Dec 13

14 17 L.MAT 2182 391 01 Guided Research 3.0 01:30-02:20pm MWF HENN 270 Meyer, J


Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 18 L.MAT 1537 450 01 Modern Algebra 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH HENN 360 Kohlhaas, A Aug 27 - Dec 13

10 1 L.MAT 2392 498 01 Directed Readings 3.0 ARR ARR ARR Heidenreich, J Aug 27 - Dec 13

18 9 L.MUS 1010 101 01 Music Theory I 3.0 08:00-08:50 MTWTHF VISI 135 McConnell,M / Carroll, R Aug 27 - Dec 13

10 6 L.MUS 1011 110 01 Applied Voice 1.0 ARR VISI 137 Kotowich, B Aug 27 - Dec 13


15 12 L.MUS 1013 110 03 Applied Voice 1.0 ARR VISI 138 Swanson,J / Kotowich, B Aug 27 - Dec 13

10 5 L.MUS 1014 110 04 Applied Voice 2.0 ARR VISI 138 Swanson,J / Kotowich, B Aug 27 - Dec 13


15 8 L.MUS 1016 121 01 Applied Piano 1.0 ARR VISI 134 Staff / Carroll, R Aug 27 - Dec 13



6 2 L.MUS 1019 122 01 Applied Organ 1.0 ARR VISI 134 Pitt, D Aug 27 - Dec 13

1 0 L.MUS 1020 122 02 Applied Organ 2.0 ARR VISI 134 Pitt, D Aug 27 - Dec 13

3 1 L.MUS 1021 123 01 Applied Harpsichord 1.0 ARR VISI 135 Pitt, D Aug 27 - Dec 13


10 1 L.MUS 1022 131 01 Applied Violin 1.0 ARR Luke,W Aug 27 - Dec 13

10 2 L.MUS 1023 132 01 Applied Viola 1.0 ARR Luke,W Aug 27 - Dec 13

10 1 L.MUS 1024 133 01 Applied Cello 1.0 ARR Luke,W Aug 27 - Dec 13

10 2 L.MUS 1025 134 01 Applied String Bass 1.0 ARR Luke,W Aug 27 - Dec 13

24 18 L.MUS 1029 135 01 Applied Guitar 1.0 ARR ARR ARR McConnell,M Aug 27 - Dec 13

10 3 L.MUS 1030 141 01 Applied Flute 1.0 ARR ARR ARR Staff Aug 27 - Dec 13

4 0 L.MUS 1031 142 01 Applied Oboe 1.0 ARR ARR ARR Omarzu,M Aug 27 - Dec 13

10 2 L.MUS 1034 143 01 Applied Clarinet 1.0 ARR Omarzu,M Aug 27 - Dec 13

10 1 L.MUS 1033 144 01 Applied Saxophone 1.0 ARR ARR ARR Omarzu,M Aug 27 - Dec 13

4 0 L.MUS 1035 145 01 Applied Bassoon 1.0 ARR Omarzu,M Aug 27 - Dec 13

8 2 L.MUS 1036 151 01 Applied Trumpet 1.0 ARR VISI 130 Pohland, G Aug 27 - Dec 13

10 0 L.MUS 1037 152 01 Applied French Horn 1.0 ARR VISI 130 Pohland, G Aug 27 - Dec 13

8 0 L.MUS 1038 153 01 Applied Trombone 1.0 ARR VISI 130 Pohland, G Aug 27 - Dec 13

8 2 L.MUS 1039 154 01 Applied Baritone 1.0 ARR VISI 130 Pohland, G Aug 27 - Dec 13


8 2 L.MUS 1040 155 01 Applied Tuba 1.0 ARR VISI 130 Pohland, G Aug 27 - Dec 13

12 4 L.MUS 1041 160 01 Applied Percussion 1.0 ARR ARR ARR Iwasaki, M Aug 27 - Dec 13

12 5 L.MUS 1042 176 01 Brass Techniques 1.0 09:00-09:50 F VISI 226 Pohland, G Aug 27 - Dec 13

70 36 L.MUS 1091 181 01 Wind Ensemble 1.0 07:00-08:50pm TTH VISI 236 Pohland, G Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 13 L.MUS 1092 182 01 Jazz Ensemble 1.0 06:00-06:50pm TTH VISI 226 Pohland, G Aug 27 - Dec 13 REQUIRES AUDITION

90 55 L.MUS 1044 183 01 Loras Concert Choir 1.0 03:30-04:50pm TTH VISI 236 Kotowich, B Aug 27 - Dec 13

24 16 L.MUS 1093 184 01 Chamber Singers 1.0 04:30-05:50pm MW VISI 236 Kotowich, B Aug 27 - Dec 13 REQUIRES AUDITION

42 16 L.MUS 1094 185 01 Bella Voce 1.0 03:30-04:20pm MW VISI 236 Kotowich, B Aug 27 - Dec 13 REQUIRES AUDITION

36 8 L.MUS 1095 186 01 Con Brio 1.0 05:00-05:50pm TTH VISI 236 Kotowich, B Aug 27 - Dec 13 REQUIRES AUDITION

25 18 L.MUS 2310 252 01 Music Appreciation-AA 3.0 10:00-10:50 MWF VISI 226 Swanson,J Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

12 7 L.MUS 1046 309 01 Orchestration 2.0 TTH VISI 226 Pohland, G Aug 27 - Dec 13

18 6 L.MUS 1047 315 01 History & Lit of Music III 3.0 08:00-08:50 MWF VISI 226 Pohland, G Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 24 L.MUS 1048 321 01 History of Sacred Music-AA 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH VISI 236 Kotowich, B Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION


1 1 L.MUS 2569 395 01 Liturgical Music Capstone 1.0 ARR Kotowich, B Aug 27 - Dec 13

16 14 L.PHE 1349 072 01 Racquet Sports 1.0 10:00-10:50 MW GRAB CT3 Tebon, C Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 23 L.PHE 1350 074 01 Team Sports I 1.0 11:00-11:50 TTH GRAB CT1 Tebon, C Aug 27 - Dec 13

15 12 L.PHE 1355 079 01 Swimming 1.0 02:00-02:50pm MW POOL POOL Colin, D Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 19 L.PHE 1356 121 01 Personal/Comm Health Educ 3.0 12:30-01:20pm MWF ROHL 143 Riley, H Aug 27 - Dec 13 Community Based Learning Required-Contact Instructor for Info

25 24 L.PHE 1357 135 01 Sports Officiating 3.0 08:00-09:20 TTH ROHL 127 Tebon, C Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 17 L.PHE 9738 150 01 Intro to Kinesiology 3.0 08:00-08:50 MWF GRAB 206 Kult, T Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

25 22 L.PHE 1358 150 02 Intro to Kinesiology 3.0 09:00-09:50 MWF ROHL 143 Sazama, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

25 7 L.PHE 1359 205 01 Intro Teaching PE Elementary 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH ROHL 127 Riley, H Aug 27 - Dec 13 09:30-10:50 TTH GRAB CTS Community Based Learning Required-Contact Instructor for Info

25 24 L.PHE 1360 244 01 Theory of Coaching 3.0 10:00-10:50 MWF ROHL 143 Dodds, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS PE & SPORT SCIENCE MAJORS ONLY

25 6 L.PHE 1361 340 01 Curriculum & Admin of PE 3.0 01:30-02:20pm MWF ROHL 127 Sazama, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 Community Based Learning Required-Contact Instructor for Info


25 9 L.PHE 1363 465 01 Sec Physical Educ Methods 3.0 08:00-09:20 TTH HENN 450 Sazama, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS Community Based Learning Required-Contact Instructor for Info

15 2 L.PHE 1364 493 01 Practicum in PE & Coaching 3.0 06:00-06:50pm T GRAB 206 Tebon, C Aug 27 - Dec 13 PE & SPORT SCIENCE MAJORS ONLY JUNIORS & SENIORS ONLY Community Based Learning Required-Contact Instructor for Info

15 2 L.PHE 2133 493 02 Practicum in PE & Coaching 3.0 ARR ARR ARR Kult, T Aug 27 - Dec 13 PE & SPORT SCIENCE MAJORS ONLY JUNIORS & SENIORS ONLY INSTRUCTOR PERMISSION REQUIRED Community Based Learning Required-Contact Instructor for Info

20 16 L.PHI 1831 101 01 Critical Reasoning 3.0 09:00-09:50 MWF KEAN 011 Lammer-Heindel, C Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 18 L.PHI 1829 222 01 Modern Philosophy 3.0 08:00-09:20 TTH KEAN 008 Joensen, W Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 23 L.PHI 1825 311 01 Business Ethics-AV 3.0 06:00-09:00pm W ARCE 102 Ciapalo, R Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

25 25 L.PHI 1826 313 01 Environmental Ethics-HV 3.0 11:00-12:20pm TTH KEAN 011 Ciapalo, R Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.CHE-262-02 Clustered with L.CHE 1334 262 02 Globl Warming-Fact/Fiction-HV

20 18 L.PHI 1827 317 01 Ethics & New Genetics-HV 3.0 06:00-09:00pm T HENN 250 Idziak, J Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.BIO-273-01 Clustered with L.BIO 2115 273 01 Human Genetics-HV

20 22 L.PHY 1538 208 01 Astronomy-HI 4.0 06:00-08:50pm MTH SCIE 242 McLaughlin, Ken Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.GRS-395-01


Clustered with L.GRS 2180 395 01 Mythology & the Cosmos-HI

52 50 L.PHY 1539 210 01 Elements Physics I 4.0 01:30-02:20pm MWF SCIE 128 Thompson, K Aug 27 - Dec 13 MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.PHY-290

20 16 L.PHY 1540 223 01 Physics Scientist/Engineers I 5.0 12:30-01:20pm MTWF SCIE 242 McLaughlin, Ken Aug 27 - Dec 13 MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.PHY-290

18 17 L.PHY 1541 290 01 Intro Physics Lab I 0.0 08:00-10:50 TH SCIE 122 Neebel, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.PHY-210*L.PHY-223

18 15 L.PHY 1542 290 02 Intro Physics Lab I 0.0 12:30-03:20pm TH SCIE 122 Thompson, K Aug 27 - Dec 13 MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.PHY-210*L.PHY-223

18 16 L.PHY 1543 290 03 Intro Physics Lab I 0.0 02:30-05:20pm W SCIE 122 McLaughlin, Ken Aug 27 - Dec 13 MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.PHY-210*L.PHY-223

18 18 L.PHY 2287 290 04 Intro Physics Lab I 0.0 02:00-04:50pm T SCIE 122 Thompson, K Aug 27 - Dec 13

30 28 L.POL 1903 101 01 Issues in American Politics 3.0 01:30-02:20pm MWF HOFF 511 Cochran, D Aug 27 - Dec 13

30 15 L.POL 1904 101 02 Issues in American Politics 3.0 02:30-03:20pm MWF HOFF 511 Cochran, D Aug 27 - Dec 13

24 12 L.POL 2278 121 01 Issues in Global Politics 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH SMYT 102 Darr,B Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

25 14 L.POL 1905 131 01 Found Western Political Thgt 3.0 10:00-10:50 MWF HOFF 312 Cochran, D Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 9 L.POL 1906 201 01 Campaigns & Elections 3.0 06:30-09:30pm T HOFF 112 Budzisz, C Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 11 L.POL 1907 211 01 Comparative Politics 3.0 09:00-09:50 MWF SMYT 102 Darr,B Aug 27 - Dec 13


25 8 L.POL 1908 301 01 Constitutional Law 3.0 02:00-03:20pm TTH HOFF 311 Budzisz, C Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

24 5 L.POL 1909 314 01 Politics in Developing World 3.0 12:30-01:50pm TTH SMYT 102 Darr,B Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 3 L.POL 2270 395 02 Moot Court 2.0 06:00-08:00pm M ARCE 402 Merkel,D Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 2 L.POL 2271 490 01 Senior Seminar 3.0 ARR ARR ARR Budzisz, C Aug 27 - Dec 13

30 28 L.PSY 2011 101 01 Introductory Psychology 3.0 09:00-09:50 MWF HENN 180 Bagley,S Aug 27 - Dec 13

30 26 L.PSY 2012 101 02 Introductory Psychology 3.0 12:30-01:20pm MWF HENN 280 Bagley,S Aug 27 - Dec 13

30 28 L.PSY 2013 101 03 Introductory Psychology 3.0 01:30-02:20pm MWF HENN 070 Hopper, M Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 25 L.PSY 2014 121 01 Developmental Psych 3.0 10:00-10:50 MWF HENN 350 Grinde, L Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 22 L.PSY 2015 121 02 Developmental Psych 3.0 12:30-01:50pm TTH HENN 280 Johnson, M Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 23 L.PSY 2016 121 03 Developmental Psych 3.0 02:30-03:50pm MW HENN 070 Dunn, R Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 24 L.PSY 2179 121 04 Developmental Psych 3.0 02:00-03:20pm TTH HENN 250 Homb,J Aug 27 - Dec 13

20 24 L.PSY 2017 211 01 Res Methods & Statistics I 4.0 11:00-11:50 TWTHF HENN 250 Grinde, L Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 24 L.PSY 2018 221 01 Abnormal Psychology 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH HENN 270 Dunn, R Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 22 L.PSY 2019 221 02 Abnormal Psychology 3.0 02:00-03:20pm TTH HENN 070 Dunn, R Aug 27 - Dec 13


20 21 L.PSY 2020 231 01 Sensation & Perception 3.0 08:00-09:20 TTH HENN 270 Bagley,S Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 24 L.PSY 2021 252 01 Positive Psychology-AI 3.0 12:30-01:50pm TTH HENN 350 Hopper, M Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

20 18 L.PSY 2034 265 01 Psychology As a Profession 1.0 01:30-02:20pm W HENN 280 Johnson, M Aug 27 - Dec 13

30 27 L.PSY 2035 332 01 Learning & Cognition 3.0 10:00-10:50 MWF HENN 070 Hopper, M Aug 27 - Dec 13

12 11 L.PSY 2377 345 01 Neurobiology 3.0 09:00-09:50 MWF SCIE 014 Jarcho,M Aug 27 - Dec 13 03:30-05:20pm T SCIE 014

20 9 L.PSY 2036 351 01 Adv Research Methods 1.0 ARR ARR ARR Grinde, L Aug 27 - Dec 13 INSTRUCTOR PERMISSION REQUIRED

25 3 L.PSY 2378 390 01 Psych Peer Assistantship 1.0 ARR TBA TBA Hopper, M Aug 27 - Dec 13 INSTRUCTOR PERMISSION REQUIRED

4 2 L.PSY 2037 394 01 Internship 1.0 ARR HENN 480 Johnson, M Aug 27 - Dec 13



15 16 L.PSY 2230 435 01 Addictions 3.0 05:15-06:35pm MW HENN 280 Schwab,A / Hopper, M Aug 27 - Dec 13 JUNIORS & SENIORS ONLY INSTRUCTOR PERMISSION REQUIRED

25 18 L.PSY 2040 490 01 Senior Seminar 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH HENN 280 Johnson, M Aug 27 - Dec 13

15 9 L.PSY 2041 612 01 Ethics/Prof Standards 3.0 04:00-07:00pm W HENN 180 Johnson, M Aug 27 - Dec 13


GRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY

18 6 L.PSY 2042 615 01 Intro Psych Test/Meas 3.0 06:00-09:00pm T HENN 180 Hopper, C Aug 27 - Dec 13 GRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY

18 16 L.PSY 2043 625 01 Psychopathology 3.0 06:00-09:00pm TH HENN 180 Nemmers, J Aug 27 - Dec 13 GRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY

18 11 L.PSY 2044 633 01 Physiological Psychology 3.0 04:00-07:00pm M HENN 180 Hopper, M Aug 27 - Dec 13 GRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY

10 5 L.PSY 2300 645 01 Risk Assessment 3.0 07:00-10:00pm W HENN 350 Bell, V Aug 27 - Dec 13 GRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY

10 3 L.PSY 2045 694 01 Practicum 3.0 07:00-09:00pm M Dalsing, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 GRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY NEED 12 GR PSY CREDS PRIOR TO REG

10 1 L.PSY 2046 696 01 Supvsed Clinical Internship I 3.0 ARR ARR ARR Dalsing, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 GRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY NEED 12 GR PSY CREDS PRIOR TO REG

30 18 L.REL 1925 112 01 Intro Theology & Rel Studies 3.0 10:00-10:50 MWF KEAN 008 Osheim, A Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 15 L.REL 2109 261 01 Christ & Culture-AC 3.0 01:30-02:20pm MWF SMYT 102 Pitt, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

25 25 L.REL 1934 272 01 Christian Sexual Morality-AV 3.0 10:00-10:50 MWF KEAN 009 Shadle, M Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

20 14 L.REL 2110 295 01 Religion and Consumer Culture 3.0 06:30-09:30pm T SMYT 102 Darr,C Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 16 L.REL 1828 391 01 The Catholic Heritage 3.0 08:00-09:20 TTH KEAN 011 Idziak, J Aug 27 - Dec 13


15 0 L.REL 1943 491 01 Thesis Writing 3.0 ARR Waldmeir, J Aug 27 - Dec 13 SENIORS ONLY RELIGIOUS STUDIES MAJORS ONLY

10 1 L.REL 1944 493 01 Practicum Parish Ministry 6.0 ARR Waldmeir, J Aug 27 - Dec 13 SENIORS ONLY RELIGIOUS STUDIES MAJORS ONLY

10 1 L.REL 2384 498 01 Directed Readings 3.0 ARR ARR ARR Waldmeir, J Aug 27 - Dec 13 RELIGIOUS STUDIES MAJORS ONLY

20 7 L.REL 1924 653 01 Catechesis & Faith Development 3.0 09:30-03:30pm S SMYT 102 Osheim, A Aug 27 - Dec 13 GRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY

10 0 L.REL 1926 680 01 Thesis 6.0 ARR Osheim, A Aug 27 - Dec 13 GRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY WRITTEN APPROVAL DIR OF CAPSTONE

10 1 L.REL 1931 680 02 Thesis 6.0 ARR Pitt, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 GRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY WRITTEN APPROVAL DIR OF CAPSTONE

10 0 L.REL 1936 680 03 Thesis 6.0 ARR Shadle, M Aug 27 - Dec 13 GRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY WRITTEN APPROVAL DIR OF CAPSTONE

10 0 L.REL 1940 680 04 Thesis 6.0 ARR Wathier, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 GRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY WRITTEN APPROVAL DIR OF CAPSTONE

10 1 L.REL 1945 680 05 Thesis 6.0 ARR Waldmeir, J Aug 27 - Dec 13 GRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY WRITTEN APPROVAL DIR OF CAPSTONE

10 0 L.REL 1927 683 01 Practicum Project 6.0 ARR Osheim, A Aug 27 - Dec 13 GRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY WRITTEN APPROVAL DIR OF CAPSTONE


10 0 L.REL 1932 683 02 Practicum Project 6.0 ARR Pitt, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 GRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY WRITTEN APPROVAL DIR OF CAPSTONE

10 0 L.REL 1937 683 03 Practicum Project 6.0 ARR Shadle, M Aug 27 - Dec 13 GRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY WRITTEN APPROVAL DIR OF CAPSTONE

10 0 L.REL 1941 683 04 Practicum Project 6.0 ARR Wathier, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 GRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY WRITTEN APPROVAL DIR OF CAPSTONE

10 0 L.REL 1946 683 05 Practicum Project 6.0 ARR Waldmeir, J Aug 27 - Dec 13 GRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY WRITTEN APPROVAL DIR OF CAPSTONE

10 1 L.REL 2375 699 01 Directed Readings 3.0 ARR ARR ARR Wathier, D Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 20 L.SCW 1797 130 01 Intro Social Welfare 3.0 09:00-09:50 MWF HENN 250 Cavanagh, B Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

25 25 L.SCW 1798 130 02 Intro Social Welfare 3.0 10:00-10:50 MWF HENN 180 Bechen, M Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

25 10 L.SCW 1799 231 01 Human Behav & Soc Environmt 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH HENN 480 Fett, N Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 7 L.SCW 1800 346 01 Social Work Practice I 3.0 12:30-01:50pm TTH HENN 480 Cavanagh, B Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 10 L.SCW 1801 347 01 Social Work Practice II 3.0 12:30-01:50pm TTH HENN 180 Bechen, M Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 16 L.SCW 1802 348 01 Social Work Practice III 3.0 09:00-09:50 MWF HENN 360 Fett, N Aug 27 - Dec 13

10 1 L.SCW 2383 394 01 Internship 3.0 ARR ARR ARR Fett, N


Aug 27 - Dec 13

20 9 L.SCW 1808 395 01 Career Options in SW Field 3.0 10:00-10:50 MWF HENN 445 Fett, N Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 0 L.SCW 1805 446 01 Field Instruction 4.5 08:00-09:50 F HENN 445 Fett, N Aug 27 - Dec 13 SOCIAL WORK MAJORS ONLY Community Based Learning Required-Contact Instructor for Info

25 0 L.SCW 1806 447 01 Field Instruction 4.5 08:00-09:50 F HENN 445 Fett, N Aug 27 - Dec 13 SOCIAL WORK MAJORS ONLY

25 0 L.SCW 1807 448 01 Field Instruction 9.0 08:00-09:50 F HENN 445 Fett, N Aug 27 - Dec 13 SOCIAL WORK MAJORS ONLY Community Based Learning Required-Contact Instructor for Info

10 1 L.SCW 2367 498 01 Directed Readings 3.0 ARR ARR ARR Cavanagh, B Aug 27 - Dec 13

29 28 L.SMG 1365 150 01 Intro Sport Management 3.0 08:00-08:50 MWF ROHL 143 Garrett, M Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES Community Based Learning Required-Contact Instructor for Info

25 14 L.SMG 1366 240 01 Sport & Society 3.0 12:30-01:50pm TTH ROHL 143 Marx,A Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 25 L.SMG 1367 270 01 Ethics in Sports-AV 3.0 12:30-01:50pm TTH KEAN 011 Ciapalo, R Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION

25 23 L.SMG 1751 280 01 Women in Sport-AI 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH ROHL 143 Marx,A Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 8 L.SMG 1368 294 01 Level-2 Internship Sport Mgmt 3.0 03:30-04:20pm M Garrett, M Aug 27 - Dec 13 MINIMUM GPA OF 2.0 REQUIRED

15 0 L.SMG 2396 294 02 Level-2 Internship Sport Mgmt 6.0 ARR Garrett, M Aug 27 - Dec 13


MINIMUM GPA OF 2.0 REQUIRED

25 25 L.SMG 1369 345 01 Adm Athletic & Rec Facilities 3.0 12:30-01:20pm MWF HENN 270 Marx,A Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

25 20 L.SMG 2135 450 01 Finance & Fund Raising 3.0 02:30-03:50pm MW ROHL 143 Marx,A Aug 27 - Dec 13 JUNIORS & SENIORS ONLY

25 26 L.SMG 2136 468 01 Sports Marketing 3.0 08:00-09:20 TTH ROHL 143 Garrett, M Aug 27 - Dec 13 JUNIORS & SENIORS ONLY Community Based Learning Required-Contact Instructor for Info

10 1 L.SMG 2137 492 01 Lev 3 Field Experience Spt Mgt 9.0 03:30-04:20pm M Garrett, M Aug 27 - Dec 13 JUNIORS & SENIORS ONLY SENIORS ONLY

10 0 L.SMG 2138 492 02 Lev 3 Field Experience Spt Mgt 12.0 03:30-04:20pm M Garrett, M Aug 27 - Dec 13 JUNIORS & SENIORS ONLY SENIORS ONLY

30 28 L.SOC 1911 115 01 Intro to Sociology 3.0 09:00-09:50 MWF HENN 280 Anderson, R Aug 27 - Dec 13 Has Not Taken L.SOC-101

30 29 L.SOC 1914 115 02 Intro to Sociology 3.0 10:00-10:50 MWF SCIE 134 Garoutte, L Aug 27 - Dec 13 Has Not Taken L.SOC-101

30 14 L.SOC 1915 115 03 Intro to Sociology 3.0 12:30-01:20pm MWF SCIE 125 Garoutte, L Aug 27 - Dec 13 Has Not Taken L.SOC-101

25 25 L.SOC 1912 240 01 Gender & Society 3.0 10:00-10:50 MWF HENN 280 Anderson, R Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 25 L.SOC 1913 254 01 Race & Ethnicity-AC 3.0 08:00-09:20 TTH HENN 070 Anderson, R Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION


25 26 L.SOC 1916 295 01 Aryan Societies 3.0 02:00-03:20pm TTH HENN 180 Garoutte, L Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 12 L.SOC 1917 333 01 Statistical Analysis 3.0 10:00-10:50 MWF HENN 360 Parks, K Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 20 L.SOC 1919 336 01 Classical Sociological Theory 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH SCIE 125 Garoutte, L Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 20 L.SOC 1918 340 01 Social Demography 3.0 12:30-01:50pm TTH HENN 450 Parks, K Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 4 L.SOC 2370 395 01 Contemporary Urban Issues 3.0 ARR ARR ARR Finnegan, F Aug 27 - Dec 13

10 1 L.SOC 2364 398 01 Emperical Research 4.0 ARR ARR ARR Garoutte, L Aug 27 - Dec 13

10 1 L.SOC 2389 498 01 Directed Readings 3.0 ARR ARR ARR Anderson, R Aug 27 - Dec 13

18 14 L.SPA 1700 110 01 Beginning Spanish I 4.0 09:00-09:50 MWF WAHL 101 Livingston, D Aug 27 - Dec 13

18 14 L.SPA 1701 210 01 Intermediate Spanish I 3.0 12:30-01:20pm MWF WAHL 143 Jeffries, K Aug 27 - Dec 13

18 17 L.SPA 1702 210 02 Intermediate Spanish I 3.0 01:30-02:20pm MWF WAHL 143 Jeffries, K Aug 27 - Dec 13

18 12 L.SPA 1703 270 01 Adv Communicative Modes 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH WAHL 101 McCarthy-Gilmore, K Aug 27 - Dec 13

18 12 L.SPA 1704 270 02 Adv Communicative Modes 3.0 02:00-03:20pm TTH WAHL 109 McCarthy-Gilmore, K Aug 27 - Dec 13

18 10 L.SPA 2337 270 03 Adv Communicative Modes 3.0 09:30-10:50 TTH HOFF 136 Livingston, D Aug 27 - Dec 13

18 13 L.SPA 1705 350 01 El Mundo Hispano 3.0 10:00-10:50 MWF WAHL 143 Livingston, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS


18 11 L.SPA 1706 350 02 El Mundo Hispano 3.0 01:00-01:50pm MWF WAHL 101 Livingston, D Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

18 9 L.SPA 1707 460 01 Themes in Literature 3.0 12:30-01:50pm TTH WAHL 109 Jeffries, K Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

30 26 L.SSC 2139 140 01 First Aid & Emergency Care 3.0 10:00-10:50 MWF GRAB 206 Kamm,C Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

30 29 L.SSC 2140 140 02 First Aid & Emergency Care 3.0 01:30-02:20pm MWF ROHL 143 Homan,K Aug 27 - Dec 13 ONLY FIRST YEARS & SOPHOMORES

25 26 L.SSC 2141 145 01 Nutrition 3.0 12:30-01:20pm MWF HOFF 112 Kult, T Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 25 L.SSC 2142 145 02 Nutrition 3.0 02:30-03:20pm MWF GRAB 206 Kult, T Aug 27 - Dec 13

25 24 L.SSC 2143 230 01 Anat/Phys I Musculoskeletal 4.0 08:00-08:50 MWF HENN 070 Johnson, D / Glover, S Aug 27 - Dec 13 11:00-12:20pm T SCIE 134 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

25 23 L.SSC 2144 230 02 Anat/Phys I Musculoskeletal 4.0 08:00-08:50 MWF HENN 070 Johnson, D / Glover, S Aug 27 - Dec 13 11:00-12:20pm TH SCIE 134 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

15 14 L.SSC 2145 322 01 Physiology of Exercise 3.0 09:00-09:50 MWF GRAB 206 Glover, S Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

15 15 L.SSC 2146 322 02 Physiology of Exercise 3.0 12:30-01:20pm MWF GRAB 206 Glover, S Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

15 12 L.SSC 2147 322 03 Physiology of Exercise 3.0 01:30-02:20pm MWF GRAB 206 Glover, S Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS


25 26 L.SSC 2148 344 01 Theory Strength Train & Condit 3.0 08:00-09:20 TTH GRAB 206 Kult, T Aug 27 - Dec 13 NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

10 0 L.SSC 2149 492 01 Internship in Sport Science 2.0 ARR GRAB 206 Glover, S Aug 27 - Dec 13 SENIORS ONLY INSTRUCTOR PERMISSION REQUIRED



16 18 L.SSE 2185 094 01 Learning Strategies 2.0 10:00-10:50 MW ARCE 402 L. Gallagher Aug 27 - Dec 13 ENHANCED PROGRAM STUDENTS ONLY

Appendix D


Appendix E


Questionnaire code book

1. What is your gender? (A)

Male (1) Female (2)

2. What year are you in college? (B)

A.) First year (1) B.) Sophomore(2) C.) Junior (3) D.) Senior (4)

3. At what age did you first get a cell phone? (C)

A) 8-10 (1) B) 11-13 (2) C) 14-16 (3) D) 17-19 (4) E) 20-22 (5) F) 23+ (6)

G) N/A (7)

4. I would find it odd for someone to not have a cell phone. (D)

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) N/A (3) Disagree(4) Strongly Disagree (5)

5. I carry my phone with me at all times. (E)


Yes (1) No (2)

6. I use Internet on my phone multiple times a day. (F)

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) N/A (3) Disagree (4) Strongly Disagree (5)

7. I couldn’t go back to a cell phone without Internet. (G)


8. Is your phone considered a smart phone? (A smartphone is a device that combines a

phone with the capabilities of a handheld computer, typically offering Internet access,

data storage, e-mail capabilities, applications, etc.) (H)

Yes (1) No (2)

9. I use my cell phone to avoid awkward situations (ex. elevators with strangers). (I)


10. I feel anxious when I do not have my cell phone with me. (J)



11. I usually turn my phone off at some point during the day. (K)


12. I would rather text then call someone. (L)


13. In a typical day I use my cell phone for more than texting and calling.(M)


14. I text when I know I shouldn’t (ex: class, work, dinner) (N)


15. I like using my phone because I can contact family, significant others, and friends. (O)



16. I feel I must constantly check my phone because family, significant others and friends

might be mad if I do not respond right away.(P)


17. Have you ever used your cell phone is an emergency situation? (Q)Yes (1) No (2)

18. Do you believe your phone helps you stay connected with others (friends, family, peers,

teachers, etc.)? (R)

Yes (1) No (2)

19. Have you ever used you cell phone to cheat in a classroom? (S)

Yes (1) No (2)

20. I feel safe knowing I have my cell phone with me.(T)


21. I believe day to day life would be very difficult without my cell phone (U)



22. I constantly check my cell phone when there is no reason to look at it. (V)


23. How many hours a day would you say you are on your phone? (W)

A) 0 (1) B) 1-2 (2) C) 3-5 (3) D) 6-10 (4) E) More than 10 hours a day (5)

24. I believe I am disconnected to the world when I do not have my phone. (X)


25. I would consider myself to be attached to my phone. (Y)


rachelrieger.weebly.comrachelrieger.weebly.com/uploads/1/9/1/4/...theory.docx · web viewin 2012...

Documents