A review of the literature shows many overlapping opinions on computer-mediated communication. First, many researchers (Cathcart & Gumpert, 1983, 1986) believe that this form of communication alters the way that we communicate with each other. Secondly, several others (Walther, 1992; Cathcart & Gumpert, 1983; 1986) suggest that face to face communication is the best way to communicate due to nonverbal cues, immediate feedback, and a variety of other reasons. Lastly, as a PeaceNet user replied, "One gets less tactful replies that are more truthful, although pretty rude sometimes" (Lewis, 1993, p.123). This opinion, that some use this medium as an escape and that some people can be very rude, was also supported by James Roach (1995), President of Western Connecticut State University, when commenting on his experience with e-mail .

On the other side, many pointed out the benefits of electronic mail (Bonsall & Chesebro, 1989; Hiltz & Kerr, 1982; Stohl, 1995). They discussed how it makes people more accessible and that it transcends time and space. People are now able to communicate with people in different time zones without even traveling. Finally, they argue that it strengthens relationships and that long lasting friendships can evolve.

Cathcart and Gumpert (1986) present Linda Lederman's view on how new technologies have impacted communication in the work place. She points out that although certain technologies allow "immediate contact across great distances, there are aspects of communication which it does not allow" (p.319). Those aspects include the lack of non-verbal communication and/or the social presence of others. She further goes on to say that these new technologies do not allow for "sequencing of events (turn taking)" or judging affects or intentions of communications. Finally she states that these new technologies hinder the development of communication skills that allow us to deal with one another, which in turn force people in the workplace to adapt to a different way of communicating.

Cathcart and Gumpert (1983) believe that mediated interpersonal communication impacts communication with others so much, that it should be added as a new category of human communication. They define the term "mediated interpersonal communication" as a general category referring to any situation where a technological medium is introduced into face to face interaction. They describe four types of communication that fit into this category, interpersonal mediated communication, media simulated interpersonal communication, person-computer interpersonal communication, and uni-communication. Interpersonal mediated communication would include telephone conversations, letters, and electronic mail (p. 70). They believe that "each new technology not only extends the reach of human communication, it also altered the ways in which humans related to information and each other" (Cathcart & Gumpert, 1983, p. 69).

More important, Cathcart & Gumpert (1983) believes that interpersonal written communication differs from face to face communication because it "requires mastery of a secondary coding system--written language--and a knowledge of the conventions of that medium. The fact that written communication can be stored and retrieved makes the exchange context-free and permanent" (p. 70). Consequently, there are things that can be said face to face that could never be put into writing. As Neil Postman (1995) put it, "It's not a conversation, it is two people typing" (WCSU Personal Appearance).

According to Rezabeck and Cochenour(1995), because electronic mail eliminates the non verbal communication such as facial expressions, posture, and eye contact that would take place in face to face communication, users often incorporate emoticons as graphical cues to augment the meaning of textual messages. "Emoticons are visual cues formed from ordinary typographical symbols that when read sideways represent feelings or emotions" (Rezabeck & Cochenour, 1995, On-Line). Emoticons, otherwise called smileys, are still "an equivalent to slang" and therefore most likely would not be used in formal communication (Levine, Young, & Reinhold, 1995, p. 59). Research done by Rezabeck and Cochenour (1995) to examine the variety and frequency of emoticons in computer-mediated communication, they found that they were not a high-use element in electronic mail. The ones most used were those that were easiest to comprehend and therefore the variety of emoticons is limited. They found seven factors that influence the use of emoticons: formality level of communication, cohesion of the communication group, age, gender, difficulty of icon reproduction, commonalty of meaning, and personal preference and experience. The difference in commonalty was also observed in the examples provided by Kulhawik (1996) and Levine, Young, & Reinhold (1995) (See Table 1 for examples of differences in commonalty of meaning for emoticons).

Difference in Commonalty of Meaning for Emoticons

>:-) Happy User,	:-) The basic smiley
:-( Sad User	:-( Frowning smiley
:-O Shocked User	:-o Uh Oh!
:-I User with a sense of humor	:- Sarcastic smiley
:-] Obnoxious user	;-( Crying
>;-) Winkin' user	;-) "Don't hit me for what I just said!"
>:-D Laugh--happy user	;-) I'm so happy, I'm crying
>:-# User with braces	::-) Wears glasses normally
8-) User wearing glasses	8-) Wearing sunglasses
:-P User with his tongue out	:-@ Screaming
:-X User with taped-up mouth	:-, Smirking user

(Kulhawik, 1996, Class Handout; Levine, Young, & Reinhold, 1995, p.59)

Walther (1992) examined several theories and their content, using the relational tone perspective on Computer-Mediated Communication. The three theories examined were Social Presence theory, Lack of Social Context Cues theory, and Media Richness theory. All show that the medium the message is transmitted through has a direct impact on how the receiver perceives it. They also agree that although CMC is effective in many instances for conveying the message, there are some instances when face-to-face communication is the best means and offers a greater bandwidth for communication. In essence, "face-to-face communication is touted as the richest " due to " immediate feedback, the number of cues and channels utilized, nonverbal back channeling cues, and personalization and language variety" (pp. 56-7).

People like Kerr would disagree, for they believe that "even though they can not see the person they are communicating with, interpersonal relationships and friendships can be formed through these systems" (Bonsall, 1989, p. 5). Not only do they believe these relationships form but that they can develop into close long-lasting friendships. In Kerr's research, one of the users replied "I have talked to some people for years without knowing where they live or their real names. Yet they are as much a presence in my life as if they were in the room. They are my friends" (Hiltz, 1982, p. 110).
The Senior Vice President of Texas Instrument also believes that his technology strengthens relationships. "You delude yourself if you think the emphasis on technology transfer is on technology. It's a humanistic task, not a technical one. Stripped to its core, the task is to make sure that the right people are in contact with one another and supporting one other's efforts" (Stohl, 1995, pp. 77-78). He feels that electronic mail is not so much about technology as it is about connecting the right people and making them accessible.

Coombs (1993) found in his distance learning class that on-line learners were sharing more, sharing more openly, and that he came to know them better than the other students in his class. One of his students noted that "the everyday communication barriers are avoided". While, on the other hand, some of his students found the lack of face-to-face communication limiting.

Although there is some disagreement about computer-mediated communication, overall it is viewed as an effective form of communication. The question should be raised though, if the student/faculty relationship has traditionally been formal and computer-mediated communication is traditionally informal, what is the formality of communication between students and faculty when using electronic mail.

The content analysis first analyzed the addressing of the letter. Did the individual address the professor by the full name with title, the first name, or was there no addressing? If the student used the full name and title, the addressing was considered formal. If there was no addressing or the first name of the professor was used it was considered informal.

The purpose of the e-mail message was determined next. Did the student set an appointment, confirm an appointment, give a brief update, ask a brief simple question or did they give a lengthy update or ask a lengthy in-depth question? More than one purpose could have been cited.

The frequency of the messages was then counted. There were three categories: zero mail messages, one to two messages, and three or more messages. The exact number of messages was noted for each individual. Then the length of the message was determined. Was the message one to three sentences, one full paragraph, two full paragraphs, or three or more paragraphs? The exact length of each message was noted as well.

The conciseness of the message was then examined. Was the message clear and straight to the point or was it a rambling and confusing message? This was noted for every e-mail message. The number of spelling errors were then counted and noted for each message and put in one of three categories. The categories were no errors, one to two errors, or three or more.

The next step determined if the body of the message was formal or informal. Following that, the sentence structure was studied to determine if the individual used complete sentences or incomplete sentences. The messages were then searched for any symbols, emoticons, or abbreviations.
The next step looked at whether the individual closed the message with their full name, first name, or no closing at all. The closing was also analyzed to see if it was a formal or informal closing. Finally, any additional notes or observations were made.

The second part of this research was to interview the professors on their perceptions of both their own messages and the messages they received from this class. They were each asked about all of the categories on the content analysis form, as to how they believed their messages would have been rated and how they believed the majority of their student's messages were rated. In addition, they were asked how many students they had in previous classes or if they knew the students before this class. Finally, they were asked if they had any additional observations.
The last step was to tally the results. First, the individual classes were tallied and then the two scores were combined. Lastly, the professors' answers were tallied and their replies were combined as well.

In class one, one of the ten students had to be omitted because the only mail received was the message that granted their permission. That left class one with a total of nine students and seventeen messages. In class two, there were three students with a total of eleven messages. Therefore, the combined number of students was twelve with a total of twenty-eight electronic mail messages (See Table 2 for complete results).

Of the twelve students in the combined classes, two people addressed the professor by full name, six addressed the professor by first name, and five used no addressing. The total equals thirteen due to the fact that one student addressed the professor by first name the first message, and then in the second message did not use an address. Four messages contained the full name, eleven the first name only, and five with no addressing. Three students with a total of five messages used a formal addressing, while nine students with a total of twenty-three messages used an informal addressing.

Five messages used e-mail to set an appointment, one to confirm an appointment, one to cancel an appointment, and one to thank the professor. Eighteen messages gave a brief update and seven gave a lengthy update. Four had a brief simple question and eleven had a lengthy, in-depth question.

One student used e-mail zero times, ten mailed one to two messages, and two sent three or more messages. The breakdown is three students sent one message, seven sent two messages, one sent three messages, and one sent eight messages. The lengths of these messages were five messages were one to three sentences, seven messages were a full paragraph, eight were two paragraphs, and eight were three or more paragraphs. Of the three or more paragraphs, six messages were three paragraphs, one message was four paragraphs, and one was six paragraphs.

Seventeen messages were straight to the point and eleven were rambling. Six messages had no spelling errors, fifteen had one to two errors, and seven had three or more errors. Of that seven, two students had three errors, two had four errors, one had five errors, and two had seven errors. Eight of the twenty-eight messages were formal in the body of the message while twenty were informal. Thirteen of those messages were complete sentences and fifteen were incomplete sentences. For emoticons, two messages included the smiley, :). One message had ----, two had ....., two used all capitals, two had an @ sign, and one used the abbreviation CU.
In the closing, six messages used their full name, twenty used their first name, and two had no closing. Of the twenty-eight closings, seven were formal and twenty-one were informal.

The second half of this study consisted of two interviews with the professors from class one and two. Both professors addressed their students by their first name with an informal addressing. The professor from class one felt that the majority addressed him in an informal manner, while the other instructor felt there was an equal mix.

Professor one used e-mail on average to confirm appointments and for brief updates or questions. The other professor said that in the beginning of the semester her messages were brief but as the semester went on and got more in-depth, so did the messages. Both professors felt that that student's purposes for sending messages was dependent upon the student.

The professor from class one sent three or more messages a week and received at least one message a day from a student. The professor from class two sent one to two messages a week and felt that the frequency that her students sent messages varied from student to student. Professor one's messages were mostly one to three sentences while professor two's messages were normally one paragraph. Professor one felt that the majority of his students sent a one to three sentence message while professor two felt that the lengths varied. Both professors felt that on average both their students and their messages consisted of complete sentences, that were straight to the point with one to two spelling errors.

When asked about formality professor two said that students were appropriately in between formal and informal, while professor one said the majority of messages were informal. They both did not use symbols, abbreviations, or emoticons. Professor one felt that a few students use symbols, abbreviations, and emoticons but professor two thought she had none.

Both professors closed their messages informally, professor one used his first name and professor two used her initials. Both professors felt that the students' closing was dependent upon the individual, but that as the semester went on that those individuals whose messages were formal became more informal.
When the professors were asked how well they knew the students, professor one had had twelve students out of nineteen in class before and knew four students outside class. Professor two had three out of twelve in class before and knew three outside class.

When asked if they had additional comments, both professors talked about how you could go into more detail in a face to face interaction. Professor one said that if he knew the question the student had was lengthy or in-depth, he would try to request to meet with the student in person. Professor two felt that face to face communication is a more effective form of communication because your conversation can be more in-depth and aware.

                           

Addressing:	Full Name	First Name	None	Formal	Informal
Class One	2	11	4	3	14
Class Two	2	0	9	2	9
Classes Combined	4	11	13	5	23
Purpose:	Set Apptment	Confirm Apptment	Cancel Apptment	Brief Update	Lengthy Update	Brief Question	Lengthy Question
Class One	5	1	1	9	6	3	5
Class Two	0	0	1	9	1	1	6
Classes Combined	5	0	2	18	7	4	11
Frequency:	Zero	One to Two	Three or more
Class One	1	8	1
Class Two	0	2	1
Classes Combined	1	10	2
Length:	One to three sentences	One paragraph	Two paragraphs	Three or more paragraphs
Class One	2	6	3	6
Class Two	3	1	5	2
Classes Combined	5	7	8	8
Conciseness:	Straight to the point	Rambling
Class One	12	5
Class Two	5	6
Classes Combined	17	11
Number of Spelling Errors:	Zero	One to two	Three or more
Class One	5	9	3
Class Two	1	6	4
Classes Combined	6	15	7
Formality of Body:	Formal	Informal
Class One	6	11
Class Two	2	9
Classes Combined	8	20
Sentence Structure:	Complete sentences	Incomplete sentences
Class One	11	6
Class Two	2	9
Classes Combined	13	15
Closing:	Full name	First name	No closing	Formal	Informal
Class One	4	11	2	5	12
Class Two	2	9	0	2	9
Classes Combined	6	20	2	7	21

 

An additional finding by Coombs (1993) that the small display on the computer monitor tends to encourage shorter statements without as many compound complex sentences was found here, to a certain extent, for many students used this form of communication to set, confirm, or cancel appointments or for a brief update or question. This finding also corresponds to the belief of the two professors that electronic mail does not provide the best environment for in-depth communication. Although, it should be noted that a good number of students did use e-mail for in-depth reasons and therefore they may not understand the constraints of this form of communication. Eighteen messages contained in-depth, lengthy questions or updates and another eleven were rambled and difficult to understand. What impact is this having on the effectiveness of this form of communication if it does not provide the right environment for these types of in-depth messages?

Another significant finding was the emoticons were not a high-use element in electronic mail, which is related to research done by Rezabeck & Cochenour (1995) who examined the variety and frequency of emoticons in computer-mediated communication. As they had found the ones most used were those that were easiest to comprehend and therefore the variety of emoticons was limited. They had also found seven factors that influence the use of emoticons: formality, level of communication, cohesion of the communication group, age, gender, difficulty of icon reproduction, commonalty of meaning, and personal preference and experience. In this situation, I believe that these symbols may not have been used for several reasons: lack of knowledge about emoticons and their meanings, personal preference of the students, and the environment and relationship with the professor. Although the majority of messages were informal, as one of the professor stated, the formality level is appropriately in between formal and informal. As Levine, Young, & Reinhold (1995) said emoticons are "an equivalent to slang" and therefore most likely would not be used in formal communication. The message may be informal while certain rules of formality may remain in place. Many emoticons are known to be vulgar and inappropriate, but students may realize where to draw the line of appropriateness, because those that were used, like the smiley face, would be considered appropriate.

With appropriateness in mind, who is setting the standards, the students or the faculty? Is there a correlation between formality of the student/faculty relationship and the formality of their messages? In both cases, the professors sent informal messages. As the semester went on, those student's messages that were formal, gradually became more informal. Is it that the student's formality is a protection device and that they are reducing their uncertainties? It is possible, that students first observe what the appropriate standard is for that professor and then adjust their communication to these standards.

Berger (1986) claims in his Uncertainty Reduction Theory that "in order to conduct a coordinated communication episode that has any meaning, people must be able to reduce their mutual uncertainties about each others' past and future actions so that they can select from their individual repertoires those interactions that will enable them to keep the interaction episode going" (p. 35). In other words, people must lessen their doubts about each other, so that they have a better understanding as to what the other person is all about. In doing so, they will know how to communicate and understand one another, thereby having a successful interaction. Students may be reducing their uncertainties about what formality is appropriate for this individual professor. In class one, twelve out of the nineteen students had this professor before and therefore may have previously reduced their uncertainties about the rules of formality. The students would have already known that the professor communicated informally which would explain the number of students whose messages were informal the whole semester.

It is then possible that there is a correlation between the formality of the relationship and the formality of the communication. In both classes the professor sent and received informal messages, after having both professors in class, you would see they are fairly informal with their students. In addition, the department is also an informal department. If this study had been conducted in a formal department and class, the results may have been different.

This study only encompassed a specific area of study and grade level and therefore different findings may have been found in different departments or student standings. If this study was conducted again, it should include more departments and classes to further examine the hypothesis that there is a correlation between the formality of the relationship and formality of the message.

Originally, three classes were to be included in this study, but the third had to be removed due to lack of communication through e-mail, and therefore the data were limited further.

An additional limitation on these data is that both professors had erased several brief messages because students were either setting or confirming appointments. Several students in these classes did not grant their permission, therefore the content analysis could not be applied to these messages which also could have an effect with the data.

Further research is needed, because there are many questions that have been left unexplored. In my review of the literature, I found vast information on group computer-mediated communication but my findings were limited to interpersonal communication. Due to the fact that electronic mail is one of the most widely used utilities of the Internet, the need to examine this communication is quite significant. The question needs to be raised about what impact this communication is having on interpersonal communication. Is it, as Lederman stated, hindering the development of communication skills that allow us to deal with one another (Cathcart & Gumpert, 1986)? Or is it changing the way we communicate with one another (Cathcart & Gumpert, 1986; Cathcart & Gumpert, 1983)? How can we intervene and improve the communication that is limited by this technology?

Additional research is needed on how this form of communication can be best utilized. What are the purposes of this communication and is CMC best suited for these types of situations? What impact is this having on face to face communication? Research on both forms should be conducted and the data compared to see what are the similarities and differences of these two types of communication. Is one replacing the other or are they being used in a collaboration?

In conclusion, this study does show to an extent that there is a correlation between the formality of the relationship between students and faculty and the formality of their messages. This findings is based on the assumption that students observe what is appropriate communication for their individual professor, to reduce their uncertainties, and then modify their communication to fit these standards. Computer-mediated communication is an intensely growing area where further investigate is essential. As CMC is increasi ng being utilized by in our society, we must remain aware of its impact and continually examine how to best apply this form of communication in our relationships.

Bonsall, D. & Chesebro, J. (1989). Computer-mediated communication. Tucaloosa, AZ: The University of Alabama Press.

Cathcart, R. & Gumpert, G. (1983). Mediated interpersonal communication: Toward a new typology. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 69 (3), 267-277.

Cathcart, R. & Gumpert, G. (1986). Communication in the workplace: The impact of the information age and high technology on interpersonal communication in organizations. Inter/Media: Interpersonal communication in a media world. New York: Oxford University Press.

Coombs, N. (1993). CMC: The Medium and the Message. Electronic Journal of Communication [On-Line], 3 (2). Available: Comserve@cios.llc.rpi.edu

Hiltz, S., & E. Kerr. (1982). Computer-mediated communication systems: Status and evaluation. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Kulhawik, J. (1996). Emoticons. Introduction to the Internet: Class Handout. Danbury, CT: Western Connecticut State University, Computer Science Department.

Levine, J. R., Young, M., & Reinhold, A. (1995). The Internet for Dummies: Quick Reference (2nd ed.). Foster City, CA: IDG Books Worldwide, Inc.

Lewis, P. (1993). Alternative media: Linking global and local. Paris: UNESCO.

Postman, N. (1995). Personal Appearance. Danbury, CT: Western Connecticut State University.

Rezabeck, L. L., & Cochenour, J. J. (1995). Emoticons: Visual Cues for Computer-Mediated Communication. [On-Line]. Imagery and Visual Literacy: Selected Readings from the Annual Conference of the International Visual Literacy Association (26th, Tempe, Arizona, October 12-16, 1994) 14. Abstract from: CONSULS File: ERIC Item: ED380096.

Roach, J. (1995). Personal Appearance. Danbury, CT: Western Connecticut State University.

Stohl, C. (1995). Organizational communication: Connectedness in action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Walther, J. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19 (1), 52-90.

Content Analysis of Electronic Mail Messages _____

Addressing:	1) Full Name _____ First Name _____ No Addressing
	2) Formal _____ Informal _____
Purpose:	Set Appointment _____ Confirm Appointment _____ Brief Update ______
	Brief, Simple Question _____ Lengthy Update _____
	Lengthy, In-depth Question _____ Other _____
Frequency:	0 _____ 1-2 _____ 3 or more _____
Length:	1-3 Sentences ____ 1 Paragraph ____ 2 Paragraphs ____
	3 or more Paragraphs ____
Conciseness:	Straight to the Point _____ Rambling _____
Number of Spelling Errors:	0 _____ 1-2 _____ 3 or more _____
Formality of Body:	Formal _____ Informal _____
Sentence Structure:	Complete Sentences _____ Incomplete Sentences _____
Symbols Used:	:-) __ :-( __ :-o __ :-I __ :-] __ :-D __ :-# __ 8-) __
	:-P __ ;-) __ :-X __ :-, __ Other _____
Abbreviations:	_____________
Closing:	1) Full Name _____ First Name _____ No Closing ____
	2) Formal _____ Informal _____