R U Able to Meat Me: The Impact of Students’ Overly Casual Email Messages to Instructors

Out-of-classroom communication (OCC) in the form of email has increased considerably in the past few years. This study uses Interaction Adaptation Theory (IAT) to inform and frame the impact of using overly casual email messages with instructors. Study one used an experimental method to determine that message quality (casual vs. formal messages) accounted for between 48% and 64% of the variance explained in affect toward the student, student credibility, and message attitude. Message quality also significantly impacted on an instructor's willingness to comply with a simple request for a face-to-face meeting. Study two further examined these findings using a comparative analysis of both instructors and students. Findings reveal that instructors are bothered more than students by overly casual email messages. Instructors attribute students’ use of overly casual emails more heavily to training issues, while students attribute this to technology use. Two specific email violations that bother instructors more than students are emails not signed by the message sender and messages that include shortcuts like “RU” instead of “are you”. Finally, it appears that instructor generational differences have little impact on these descriptive findings.

[1]  J. Mccroskey,et al.  Ethos and credibility: The construct and its measurement after three decades , 1981 .

[2]  S. Myers,et al.  Students' Communication Traits and Their Out-of-Class Communication with Their Instructors , 2006 .

[3]  Lynne C. Lancaster,et al.  When generations collide : who they are, why they clash, how to solve the generational puzzle at work , 2002 .

[4]  Nicole Dobransky,et al.  Developing teacher‐student relationships through out of class communication , 2004 .

[5]  Thomas W. Jackson,et al.  Email training significantly reduces email defects , 2005, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[6]  A. Gouldner.  THE NORM OF RECIPROCITY: A PRELIMINARY STATEMENT * , 1960 .

[7]  A. A. Lumsdaine.  Communication and persuasion , 1954 .

[8]  Ruby Roy Dholakia,et al.  Influencing Buyer Behaviour: Processes and Strategies , 1979 .

[9]  J. Mccroskey,et al.  Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement , 1999 .

[10]  Annette N. Shelby,et al.  The Theoretical Bases of Persuasion: A Critical Introduction , 1986 .

[11]  Ronald Roach.  The Higher Education Technology Revolution. , 1999 .

[12]  R. Duran,et al.  College Faculty Use and Perceptions of Electronic Mail to Communicate with Students , 2005 .

[13]  Gregory S. Blimling.  New Technologies: Changing how we work with Students , 2000 .

[14]  Barry Haworth.  An Analysis of the Determinants of Student E-Mail Use , 1999 .

[15]  James C. McCroskey,et al.  The association of perceived communication apprehension, shyness, and verbal aggression with perceptions of source credibility and affect in organizational and interpersonal contexts , 2003 .

[16]  Sara E. Hinkle.  The Impact of E-mail Use on Student-Faculty Interaction , 2002 .

[17]  P. Andersen,et al.  Never smile until Christmas? Casting doubt on an old myth , 1987 .

[18]  Marian L. Houser,et al.  The teacher‐student relationship as an interpersonal relationship , 2000 .

[19]  Lawrence R. Wheeless,et al.  A meta‐analytical review of the relationship between teacher immediacy and student learning , 2004 .

[20]  Jerold L. Hale,et al.  Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors , 1988 .

[21]  Laurie K. Lewis,et al.  Receivers' reactions to dissonant use of communication technology in the workplace: effects on communication strategies and the perceived usefulness of technology , 2005 .

[22]  J. Crant,et al.  Dyadic Communication Relationships in Organizations: An Attribution/Expectancy Approach , 2000 .

[23]  B. Tabachnick,et al.  Using multivariate statistics, 5th ed. , 2007 .

[24]  Timothy P. Mottet,et al.  The effects of student verbal and nonverbal responsiveness on teachers' liking of students and willingness to comply with student requests , 2004 .

[25]  James C. McCroskey,et al.  An Introduction to Rhetorical Communication , 1971 .

[26]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Information Exchange and Use in Group Decision Making: You Can Lead a Group to Information, but You Can't Make It Think , 1996, MIS Q..

[27]  Anders McIlquham-Schmidt.  A meta-analytical review of the relationship between strategic planning and corporate performance , 2010 .

[28]  J. Mccroskey.  Scales for the measurement of ethos , 1966 .

[29]  Joan Waldvogel,et al.  Greetings and Closings in Workplace Email , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[30]  R. Zajonc.  Feeling and thinking : Preferences need no inferences , 1980 .

[31]  Steven W. Gilbert,et al.  Technology & the Changing Academy: Symptoms, Questions, and Suggestions , 1995 .

[32]  Adelaide R. Doyle-Nichols,et al.  Enhancing Telecommunication in Teacher Education , 1991 .

[33]  J. Mccroskey,et al.  Power in the Classroom III: Teacher Communication Techniques and Messages. , 1985 .

[34]  J. Burgoon,et al.  Effects of Communication Expectancies, Actual Communication, and Expectancy Disconfirmation on Evaluations of Communicators and Their Communication Behavior , 1993 .

[35]  E. Vance Wilson,et al.  Persuasive Effects of System Features in Computer-Mediated Communication , 2005, J. Organ. Comput. Electron. Commer..

[36]  Anne S. Tsui,et al.  Interpersonal affect and rating errors. , 1986 .

[37]  James C. McCroskey,et al.  Reliability and Validity of the Generalized Attitude Measure and Generalized Belief Measure , 2006 .

[38]  Stephen A. Rains.  What's in a name?: two studies examining the impact of anonymity on perceptions of source credibility and influence , 2005 .

[39]  Marjorie A. Jaasma,et al.  Out-of-Class Communication Between Female and Male Students and Faculty: The Relationship to Student Perceptions of Instructor Immediacy , 2002 .

[40]  Ann Colley,et al.  Style and Content in E-Mails and Letters to Male and Female Friends , 2004 .

[41]  J. Walther.  Relational Aspects of Computer-Mediated Communication: Experimental Observations over Time , 1995 .

[42]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Reacting to nonverbal expressions of liking: A test of interaction adaptation theory , 1999 .

[43]  Elkafi Hassini,et al.  Student-instructor communication: The role of email , 2006, Comput. Educ..

[44]  J. Burgoon.  Interpersonal Expectations, Expectancy Violations, and Emotional Communication , 1993 .

[45]  Ulla K. Bunz,et al.  Politeness Accommodation in Electronic Mail , 2004 .

[46]  H. Kelley,et al.  Communication and Persuasion: Psychological Studies of Opinion Change , 1982 .

[47]  Joel Bloch,et al.  Student/teacher interaction via email: the social context of Internet discourse , 2002 .

[48]  P. V. D'Souza,et al.  Electronic mail in academic settings: a multipurpose communications tool , 1992 .

[49]  James C. McCroskey,et al.  Image of mass media news sources , 1975 .

[50]  Sherri L. Jessmer,et al.  The effect of politeness and grammar on user perceptions of electronic mail. , 2001 .

[51]  Lanette L. Pogue,et al.  The Effect of Teacher Nonverbal Immediacy and Credibility on Student Motivation and Affective Learning , 2006 .

[52]  E-MAIL: INSTRUCTIONAL POTENTIALS AND LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES , 2002 .

[53]  David M. Johnstone.  Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation , 2001 .

[54]  Marian M. Extejt,et al.  Teaching Students to Correspond Effectively Electronically , 1998 .

[55]  J. Burgoon,et al.  Interpersonal Adaptation: Dyadic Interaction Patterns , 1995 .