Johnson, J. L. (1997). Commuter college students: What factors determine who will persist or who will drop out? College Student Journal, 31(3), 323-332.
The study described in this article used multivariate statistical techniques to examine the factors that differentiate students who stay in school and those who leave an institution that primarily serves commuter students. Universities around the United States are concentrating more of their attention and resources on recruiting and retaining students as a result of the rising expense of a college education and the declining number of high school graduates. Serving students’ needs are crucial once they enroll at a university in order to ensure their persistence until graduation. The sample for this longitudinal study underwent a six-year period of observation. Throughout the six years, surveys of the students were conducted on a regular basis, and data on the students was gathered via the university’s Integrated Student Information System.
The price of a college education has soared over the past several decades while the proportion of high school graduates has consistently declined. Due to these reasons, colleges all over the nation are increasingly concentrating their attention and resources on finding new ways to attract and keep students. Higher education institutions research trends of student enrolment and look for methods to better serve their students. Universities continue to review the programs they provide and look for strategies to attract and keep students until they graduate due to the pressure of competition among universities and schools for enrollment.
Stark, M. (1965). Commuter and residence hall students compared. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 44(3), 277-281.
In this study, male and female accommodation and commuter freshman students were analyzed on the basis of their acknowledged personal difficulties, study habits, and reading skills. On the Mooney Problem Check Lists sub-areas of Finances, Living Conditions, Employment, and Home and Family, the two groups of commuter students had a significantly higher number of issues than the two groups of students living in residence halls. The trend of colleges and universities initiating or expanding personnel services for their students has been more widespread during the last ten years. Therefore, it is now critical to investigate how these conditions affect students and their studies.
The results of this study utilizing these commuter students are in line with research done at other universities using residential, non-commuter students. The importance of researching this group of commuting students, however, cannot be stressed. This population is crucial to research since commuter students typically face significantly different constraints and obligations than regular campus-based students, such as full- or part-time work, as well as obligations to their families and homes. Therefore, this study can be very helpful to schools that serve commuter students in their attempts to boost retention and graduation rates, in addition to correlating what other studies have discovered and contributed to the body of knowledge.
Gianoutsos, D., & Rosser, V. (2014). Is there still a considerable difference? Comparing residential and commuter student profile characteristics at a public, research, commuter university. College Student Journal, 48(4), 613-628.
The aim of the study is to evaluate the demographic, pre-matriculation, and matriculation aspects of student profiles between typical residential and commuter students at a public, research-based commuter institution. The researchers used a discriminant function analysis to look at how the student profile traits were categorized between the two student groups using status attainment as the theoretical framework. According to the findings, commuter students were more likely to be Hispanic and in-state students than their counterparts who were residential students. In addition to having greater socioeconomic class, more educated parents, more earned credits, and higher utilization of financial aid in the form of work-study, grants, and loans, residential students were also more likely to be African Americans. There were no differences between residential and commuter students in terms of academic performance indicators (GPA, retention, academic standing). Additional study is required to explore these changing multidimensional student characteristics as commuter schools continue to admit more diverse student populations and national student enrollments keep changing.
The differences between commuter and residential students start with where they live. Students who live off-campus in non-institutionally owned or run accommodation are referred to as commuter students, while those who live on campus in institutionally owned or operated housing are known as residential students. However, research on higher education reveals that the two student groups have underlying distinctions that go beyond where they live. In general, commuter students are a more diverse group that is perceived as being “disadvantaged” versus residential students because they miss the chances provided by the residence hall experience. However, this perception is diminishing as research advances.
Schuchman, H. (1974). Special tasks of commuter students. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 52(7), 465-470.
Students who commute have unique transition issues that are very different from those experienced by students attending a residential institution. The majority of commuter students come from families that have never before sent a member of their family to college. As a result, these students must bridge the gap between their previous family- and community-centered lives and the academic environment in which they now live. They must specifically deal with maturational challenges, including submitting to authority, controlling urges, preserving self-esteem, and creating a proper identity. The author underlines that it is the responsibility of counselors to help these students by understanding their conflicts, helping them through their challenges, and, when necessary, changing institutional policies.
Alfano, H., & Eduljee, N. (2013). Differences in work, levels of involvement, and academic performance between residential and commuter students. College Student Journal, 47(2), 334-342.
The goal of this study was to determine how to work, levels of participation, and academic achievement varied between commuter and residential students. At a private university in the Northeast, 138 undergraduate students were polled for this study. The participants were given surveys that looked at their jobs and degrees of participation. The findings showed there was no correlation between hours worked and GPA. Residential and commuter students often showed little interest in clubs, athletics, and other school-sponsored activities. Although both residential and commuter students claimed to feel like a part of the college community, they also expressed a desire to get more involved in events organized by the school. It seems that there is no distinct difference between residential and commuter students.
The results suggest that the variable around which efforts should be focused is the academic atmosphere. The results of this study specifically point to relationships and interactions between staff and students, with an emphasis on female students, as a crucial area for attention. The teachers and staff at the university must be responsive to the requirements of all students, according to the research and conclusions of this study.
References
Alfano, H., & Eduljee, N. (2013). Differences in work, levels of involvement, and academic performance between residential and commuter students. College Student Journal, 47(2), 334-342.
Gianoutsos, D., & Rosser, V. (2014). Is there still a considerable difference? Comparing residential and commuter student profile characteristics at a public, research, commuter university. College Student Journal, 48(4), 613-628.
Johnson, J. L. (1997). Commuter college students: What factors determine who will persist or who will drop out? College Student Journal, 31(3), 323-332.
Schuchman, H. (1974). Special tasks of commuter students. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 52(7), 465-470.
Stark, M. (1965). Commuter and residence hall students compared. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 44(3), 277-281.