Sense of community on an urban, commuter campus

Abstract

As youth make the transition into adulthood, many are choosing to extend their education and delay the stereotypical institutions of adult life. At the same time, in the United States an increasing number of college students reside in off-campus housing. Research suggests that these students may be less likely to persist in their education and more likely to suffer from a lack of well-being (life satisfaction, positive affect, self-efficacy). One explanation for these challenges is the difficulty that commuter students may have to build relationships and access services on traditional college campuses. Collegiate sense of community (CSOC) has been proposed as a key metric for predicting student persistence and well-being. This mixed-methods study identifies how students on an urban, commuter campus develop CSOC, describes barriers to connecting on campus, and demonstrates significant relationships between CSOC, student affect, life satisfaction, and educational expectations. The results have broad implications for youth development and retention in post-secondary educational institutions.

Keywords::

• sense of community
• college student development
• life satisfaction

Introduction

The dominant picture of the American college student is changing. More students are attending college than ever before (National Center for Education Statistics, 2010) and less of them look like the stereotypical college student (Reason, 2009). In fact, an estimated 73% of all students are ‘non-traditional’ (National Center for Education Statistics, 2002), and the percentage of students over age 25 is growing rapidly (National Center for Education Statistics, 2010). Commuter campuses, comprised of mostly non-residential students, are becoming more common (Clark, 2006), and 85% of all college students now live off campus (Horn, Nevill, & Griffith, 2006).

Unfortunately, much of what we know about the college population is based on the traditional college student model (Pascarella, 2006; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1998). Despite the rise of the commuter student, ‘the dominant residential tradition of higher education has impeded institutional response to their (“commuter students”) presence’ (Pascarella, 2006, p. 513). As a result, ‘the unique needs of commuter students have been neither adequately understood nor appropriately incorporated into policies, programs, and practices’ (Jacoby & Garland, 2004, p. 62). The current study aims to increase knowledge about the commuter student population by understanding how students connect on campus.

Retention and social connections

As demographic trends evolve, universities are increasingly concerned about retaining their students. Recent data show that more than one in four students at public, four-year institutions in the United States will drop out by their second year, and only 50% will complete their degree within six years (ACT, 2010). Non-traditional, commuting students are more likely to drop out of school without receiving a degree, as are students of colour and those of lower socio-economic status (National Center for Education Statistics, 2002).

Most commuter students are faced with additional responsibilities beyond just being a student. They are more likely to work full-time jobs (National Center for Education Statistics, 2002) and must, in many cases, balance multiple responsibilities and multiple identities. These additional constraints increase the likelihood of students considering a withdrawal from school (Laurent, 2011). Keeling (1999) illustrated the competing identities that many students face: ‘Student is only one identity for people who are also employees, wage workers, opinion leaders or followers, artists, friends, children … parents, partners, or spouses’ (p. 4). Commuting students have likened their attendance at college to ‘stopping at the mall’ (Jacoby, 2000), just another piece of their life that does not define who they are.

At the same time, the literature on college retention suggests that social connections in the college setting are key for persistence and satisfaction with the school (Karp, 2011). In his groundbreaking theory, Tinto (1997) cited ‘integration’ and ‘patterns of interaction’ as two key components that distinguish students who persist with their education from those who do not. The more involved students are on campus, the more likely they are to remain in school (Tinto, 1997) and to report satisfaction with the university (Thomas & Galambos, 2004). Unfortunately, recent research shows that only 59% of commuting students in the United States participated in co-curricular activities, compared with 75% of residential students (National Survey of Student Engagement, 2011). Worse yet, commuting students are less likely to feel that their school wants them to thrive (National Survey of Student Engagement, 2011), to identify with the school (Newbold, Mehta, & Forbus, 2011), or to report a ‘sense of belonging to or of feeling wanted by the institution’ (Jacoby & Garland, 2004, p. 65).

Sense of community

In contrast to ‘feeling unwanted’, sense of community is a widely-used construct defined as:

the perception of similarity to others, an acknowledged interdependence with others, a willingness to maintain this interdependence by giving to or doing for others what one expects from them, and the feeling that one is part of a larger dependable and stable structure. (Sarason, 1974, p. 157)

Sense of community is developed as a function of both the individual and the environment (Brodsky, O'Campo, & Aronson, 1999). It is comprised of various sub-factors, including: membership (‘feeling that one has invested part of oneself’); influence (sense of opportunity to affect outcomes); integration and fulfilment of needs (both individual and community needs are met reciprocally); and shared emotional connection (shared history, personal investment, and quality interaction) (McMillan, 1996, McMillan & Chavis, 1986; Peterson, Speer, & McMillan, 2008). Although some debate exists as to the number of sub-factors, sense of community remains a valuable construct with broad implications for practice (Pretty, Bishop, Fisher, & Sonn, 2006).

Sense of community is closely related to the construct of social capital (Putnam, 2001). Defined as the ability that one has to draw upon social networks to achieve one's goals (Portes, 1998), social capital has been shown to be a great predictor of college enrolment (Perna & Titus, 2005) and success (Palmer & Gasman, 2008). This is particularly true for students of colour, lower socio-economic status, and those who are the first in their family to attend college (i.e. first-generation students). Sense of community may be most important for students from these groups.

In higher education settings, collegiate sense of community (CSOC) has been directly linked to student persistence (Jacobs & Archie, 2008), satisfaction with the university, student motivation, and perception of course value (Freeman, Anderman, & Jensen, 2007). Students who do not ‘fit-in’ are more likely to drop out of school than those who are more connected (Kelly, Kendrick, Newgent, & Lucas, 2007). The establishment of CSOC may be most important for students from traditionally under-represented groups (Parker & Flowers, 2003) and students making the transition into college (Pittman & Richmond, 2008). Not surprisingly, commuter students and students in their later years of college have reported lower CSOC than residential students and those in their first years of college (Lounsbury & DeNeui, 1996).

Purpose of the study

In light of this research and the growing population of commuting students, CSOC may be a valuable construct to inform student retention and development efforts. While previous research does suggest that commuter students and upperclassmen (e.g. students in the third or fourth year of college) report lower CSOC, three key questions remain unanswered. First, previous studies have not adequately controlled for the role of demographic factors that may affect the student experience. Race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or being a first-generation college student may affect the way students connect on campus and distort observed differences based upon residence type or class standing.

Second, few studies with college students have explored how CSOC is directly related to other outcomes affecting the mental health and academic success of students. For this study, four factors are considered: educational expectations, affect (both positive and negative), life satisfaction, and self-efficacy. Educational expectations serve as a proximate indicator of intention to persist with college. Positive and negative affect provide a general measure of mental health status (Watson, Clark, & Tellegan, 1988) and have been associated with intrinsic motivation (Bye, Pushkar, & Conway, 2007). Self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) is a critical cognitive component that is directly related to student persistence (for a review, see Gore, 2006) and overall purpose of life (DeWitz, Woolsey, & Walsh, 2009). In sum, considering these outcomes provides an understanding of the importance of CSOC as a factor of interest in student retention and development.

Finally, while quantitative data show differences between groups, they fail to completely describe those differences. Qualitative data are needed to better understand the way in which students connect on campus and to identify the barriers and pathways that inhibit and/or enhance CSOC. This is vital for the development of university policies and interventions. By adopting a mixed-methods approach, a richer picture of CSOC can be developed.

Research questions

To add to the literature on student retention and its relationship to CSOC on an urban, commuter campus, the current study employed a mixed-methods design. A series of research questions were considered. The primary question for the first analysis was: ‘Can CSOC be predicted by 1) demographic characteristics, including age, race/ethnicity, marital status, sexual orientation, and gender? and 2) academic factors including student residence (on-campus/off-campus) and the number of credit hours earned after controlling for demographic factors?’ Together these questions help identify factors that relate to the development of COSC on an urban, commuter campus.

To explore the connection between CSOC and other constructs, two research questions were asked. First, ‘Is there a relationship between CSOC and a) educational expectations, b) positive and negative affect, c) life satisfaction, and d) self-efficacy?’. Secondly, ‘Are there differences between students with high CSOC and low CSOC on these indicators?’. These questions were designed to identify the possible connection between proximal indicators of student persistence and well-being.

Finally, to further develop these relationships, focus groups were planned with members of various groups on campus. These included racial/ethnic groups (White, Black or African American, Hispanic/Latino, American Indian), first-generation college students (those who were first in their family to attend college), and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual (LGBT) students. The groups explored differences in the way that individuals experience CSOC. The key questions were: ‘What helps you connect on campus?’ and ‘What keeps you from connecting on campus?’ These data provide a descriptive explanation of the quantitative measures and increase understanding of the ways CSOC develops and affects student outcomes.

Methods

Procedure

The current study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board. Participants were recruited via an online experiment participation tool and received course credit for completing the online survey. The surveys were anonymous and the responses were kept separate from identifying information used to grant credit. The online survey was developed using SPSS's mrInterview software, and data were imported into IBM's SPSS 18 for analysis.

Participants were allowed to submit an email address in the survey if they were willing to participate in a focus group for additional credit. Eight-five per cent of the survey respondents indicated willingness to participate in the groups. Students were purposively selected from that pool and invited via email to participate based upon the criteria for the group (e.g. Black students, LGBT students, etc.). Groups were held on-campus during the evening hours. All focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed for analysis.

Participants and setting

All data from this study were collected at an urban, public Midwestern US university of moderate size. Of the more than 14,000 students, 66% were White, 30% were age 25 or older, and more than 75% lived off-campus. While seven out of 10 first-year, full-time students returned for a second year, only 44% of female and 38% of male students graduated with a Bachelor's degree within six years.

A total of 761 participants completed the survey over the course of two semesters. Consistent with the demographic composition of the overall student body, the majority of participants identified as female (n = 509, 66.9%), White (n = 599, 78.7%), heterosexual (n = 713, 93.7%), and having an off-campus residence (n = 587, 77.2%). Age and college experience in the sample reflected the diversity of the institution. Ages ranged from 17 to 57 with a median age of 19. Credit hours accumulated also varied from zero (n = 67, 8.8%) to 124, with a mean of 39.42 credit hours received (standard deviation  = 40.37). Demographic characteristics and mean CSOC scores by group are displayed in Table 1.

Table 1 Demographic characteristics and mean CSOC scores.

	n (% of sample)	Mean CSOC (standard deviation)
Gender
Female	508 (66.8%)	50.2 (9.7)
Male	250 (32.9%)	49.0 (9.7)
Race/ethnicity
American Indian	21 (2.8%)	49.5 (12.0)
Asian/Asian American	70 (9.2%)	48.5 (9.6)
Black/African American	49 (6.4%)	52.0 (8.4)
Hispanic/Latino	60 (7.9%)	50.2 (8.9)
White/Caucasian	599 (78.7%)	49.5 (9.9)
Sexual orientation
LGBT	49 (6.4%)	45.3 (11.6)
Heterosexual	711 (93.4%)	50.1 (9.5)
Marital status
Unmarried	659 (86.6%)	50.0 (9.6)
Married	100 (13.1%)	48.6 (10.4)
Place of residence
Commuter	588 (77.3%)	48.9 (9.3)
On-campus	173 (22.7%)	52.9 (10.3)

Five focus groups were conducted with a total of 24 participants. The focus groups were purposively selected to explore how different groups develop CSOC. Groups included Black students (n = 4), Asian students (n = 2), Hispanic/Latino students (n = 4), LGBT students (n = 4), and first-generation students (i.e. those who were the first in their family to attend college) (n = 10).

Measures

Quantitative data

The online survey contained various measures of demographic characteristics, CSOC, and other variables, including educational expectations, affect, life satisfaction, and self-efficacy. A variety of demographic questions were used for the analysis, including gender, age, and marital status. For race/ethnicity, participants were asked to select all races/ethnicities that applied to them. Dichotomous variables for major racial/ethnic groups (American Indian, Asian, Black, Hispanic/Latino, White) were created to indicate identification with that group. Participants also reported how many credit hours they had earned in college to date and details on their housing situation. The housing question included several on-campus and off-campus options. These were dichotomised to form a ‘commuter’ variable, with the higher value indicating residence off-campus and the lower value indicating on-campus residence (i.e. residence hall, fraternity, or sorority).

College sense of community

The 14-item Collegiate Psychological Sense of Community Scale developed by Lounsbury and DeNeui (1996) was used as a singular measure of CSOC. Previous research found this scale to have high reliability (α = 0.88) (Lounsbury & DeNeui, 1996), and Cronbach's alpha for the current study was 0.92. Sample questions from this scale include: ‘There is a strong feeling of togetherness on campus’ and ‘I really feel like I belong here’. Scores were assessed on a five-point, Likert-style scale with choices ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. The 14 items were summed to form a single CSOC variable ranging from 14 to 70.

Educational expectations

A single item asked students to report: ‘How much education do you realistically expect to obtain?’. Response options ranged from ‘Less than a 4-year degree’ to ‘Ph.D. or M.D.’. Owing to the categorical nature of the responses, this variable was re-coded into a dichotomous variable, with the higher value indicating expectation of obtaining a Bachelor's degree or higher and the lower value indicating that the student did not expect to complete their Bachelor's degree.

Positive and negative affect

The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule was used to assess mental health status (Watson et al., 1988). Participants were asked to report whether they had experienced 10 positive affects (i.e. excited, enthusiastic, determined) or 10 negative affects (i.e. distressed, guilty, afraid) during the course of the past week Participants rated the items on a scale from ‘very slightly or not at all’ to ‘extremely’. Higher scores on the positive items are associated with greater positive emotion, while scores on the negative items indicate more negative affect. Cronbach's alpha reliabilities for this study were 0.88 for positive affect and 0.77 for negative affect.

Life satisfaction

Based on Cantril's (1965) ladder, a singular question measured the subjective experience of life satisfaction. The question asked: ‘Imagine a ladder, the top of the ladder is “10”. This is the best possible life for you. The bottom of the ladder is “0”, this is the worst possible life for you. In general, where do you feel you stand at the moment?’ This item formed a continuous measure ranging from zero to 10, with higher values indicating greater satisfaction with life.

Self-efficacy

Self-efficacy was measured using a six-item scale derived from the General Self-Efficacy Scale (Schwarzer, 1992). The six items were: ‘I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough’; ‘Thanks to my resourcefulness, I can handle unforeseen situations’; ‘I can remain calm when facing difficulties because I can rely on my coping abilities’; ‘When I'm confronted with a problem, I can find several solutions’; ‘If I am in trouble, I can think of a good solution’; and ‘I can handle whatever comes my way’. Response choices ranged on a five-point, Likert-style scale from one (‘completely disagree’) to five (‘completely agree’). These responses were summed for an overall measure of self-efficacy. Cronbach's alpha for the current study was 0.81, indicating moderately high reliability in this measure.

Qualitative data

A semi-structured protocol was developed for the focus groups. A key open-ended question included: ‘What is it like being a student at (university name removed)?’ Sub-questions asked about the pathways (e.g. activities, group-participation) by which the students connected to the campus and the barriers (e.g. discrimination, commuting) that inhibited them from connecting. Questions were tailored to the demographic group sampled in each focus group session (i.e. Black, LGBT, etc.).

Data analysis

Quantitative analyses

To address the research questions, a mixed-methods approach was taken to analyse the survey and focus group data. First, hierarchical multiple regression models were built to test the predictability of CSOC from demographic factors (gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, marital status), commuting status (living on-campus or off-campus) and length of time in college (number of credit hours earned). The demographic variables were entered in the first block, with commuting status and time in college added in the second block.

Bivariate correlations were utilised to establish the relationship between CSOC and: educational expectations; positive and negative affect; life satisfaction; and self-efficacy. Comparisons were then made between high sense of community (upper quartile) and low sense of community (lowest quartile) students on the same indicators using independent-samples t-tests.

Qualitative analyses

To better explore these connections, focus group data were used to identify the key themes of connection. All focus group data were coded using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), in which six members of the research time reviewed audio recordings and transcriptions individually and then discussed appropriate themes together until reaching consensus of all team members. Themes that could not be agreed upon with 10 minutes of discussion were dropped from the analysis or integrated into existing themes. After conducting this process, no themes were dropped from the analysis.

Results

Quantitative results

Hierarchical multiple regression was used to assess the predictability of CSOC based upon demographic factors, commuting status and cumulative credit hours. In the first step, CSOC was predicted from nine demographic factors including gender, sexual orientation, marital status, age, and five dichotomous race/ethnicity variables. This model was marginally significant (F(749) = 2.50, p < 0.05, r²  = 0.03, adjusted r²  = 0.02), but only sexual orientation was a significant predictor of CSOC (B =  − 4.80, p < 0.001).

In the second step, commuting status and the number of credit hours earned were entered into the equation. This model was significant (F (747) = 5.77, p < 0.001, r²  = 0.07, adjusted r²  = 0.06) and predicted CSOC after controlling for demographic factors (r² change  = 0.05, p < 0.001). In the second model, commuting status (B = 4.06, p < 0.001) and amount of credit hours earned (B =  − 0.038, p < 0.001) were both significant predictors of CSOC. Students who lived on campus reported higher CSOC than those living off-campus. Conversely, students with more time spent in college (as evidenced by credit hours earned) reported lower CSOC. Sexual orientation remained a significant predictor of CSOC in the second model (B =  − 3.51, p < 0.001). Thus, LGBT students reported lower CSOC even after including class standing and commuting status.

College sense of community and outcomes

Having identified predictors of CSOC and associated barriers to connection, the relationship between CSOC and student outcomes was explored using the quantitative data. Bivariate correlations demonstrated the relationship between CSOC and the other constructs. Results revealed a significant relationship between CSOC and all five variables, with the strongest relationships for positive affect (r = 0.26, p < 0.01), life satisfaction (r = 0.24, p < 0.01), and self-efficacy (r = 0.19, p < 0.01). CSOC was also correlated with educational expectations (r = 0.13, p < 0.01). The correlations are displayed in Table 2.

Table 2 Correlations between key variables.

		1	2	3	4	5	6
1	CSOC	–	0.26**	− 0.11**	0.24**	0.19**	0.13**
2	Positive affect		–	− 0.19**	0.45**	0.45**	0.15**
3	Negative affect			–	− 0.37**	− 0.38**	− 0.03
4	Life satisfaction				–	0.37**	0.07
5	Self-efficacy					–	0.19**
6	Educational expectations						–

Note: **p < 0.01.

To further explore these relationships, comparisons were made between students with high CSOC and those with low CSOC. Groups were created by taking the lower and upper quartiles on the CSOC scale. The low CSOC group (n = 202) reported lower positive affect (t(388) =  − 6.67, p < 0.001, d =  − 0.68), life satisfaction (t(414) =  − 5.35, p < 0.001, d =  − 0.53), and self-efficacy (t(360.74) =  − 3.87, p < 0.001, d =  − 0.38) with higher negative affect (t(383) = 2.19, p < 0.05, d = 0.22) than the group with higher CSOC (n = 213). No differences were found in educational expectations between these two groups.

Qualitative results

Focus groups were conducted with various key demographic groups on campus to explore differences in their development of CSOC. To our surprise, the participants from each group did not perceive their minority status as a disadvantage and reported no barriers to connecting on campus based upon their racial background, sexual orientation, or generational status. Conversely, the participants saw their identity as an asset that opened up special opportunities (e.g. scholarships), made them ‘feel special’, and gave a sense of being ‘unique.’ Despite reporting lower CSOC on the quantitative measures, members of the LGBT group reported that their sexual orientation helped them connect more upon entering the university, making it easier to identify a community with which to connect ‘right off the bat’.

‘In and out’

Differences did emerge based upon the students' attitude toward the campus as a community for connection. In the ‘first-generation’ group, a clear delineation was found between students who saw the campus as place to connect, be involved, and form relationships and those who did not. Members of the latter group coined the term ‘in-and-out’ to describe the way in which they perceived their campus involvement. For these students, the university was not a place to connect and participate, but a setting that they attended for class and then left, much as they may access a workout facility or shopping centre. This clearly contrasted with the other sub-group, which reported a high degree of involvement in various activities and events related to the college campus. While these attitudes could roughly be divided based upon commuting status (e.g. commuting students were more likely to adopt an ‘in-and-out’ attitude), the orientation toward campus was independent of residence or other factors. For example, some commuting students saw the campus as a place to connect but found difficulties in doing so, while others appeared completely disinterested in developing CSOC. Clearly, student attitude and choice make a difference in their CSOC, although commuting students may face additional barriers that limit their ability to connect.

Barriers to connection

Through the focus groups, barriers to developing CSOC were also identified. These included time. One student described the difficulties in balancing coursework, employment, and activities while living off-campus. He said: ‘If you have so many classes, you can't really just join a group’. These time gaps were more pronounced among commuting students who acknowledged limitations with transportation and scheduling. Some found events that met in the evening more difficult to attend because it meant coming back to the campus from their residence and negotiating around other commitments including work and family. Their response to these barriers was often to remain uninvolved, leading many to view the college campus not as a place to connect, but as another location in which they received a service, comparable with the grocery store or beauty salon.

Discussion

The current study explored the relationship between CSOC, commuting status, and related student outcomes, including affect, self-efficacy, life satisfaction, and educational expectations. The results demonstrate that, after controlling for a wide range of demographic indicators, CSOC can be predicted by where a student lives and how long they have been in college. These findings are consistent with previous studies (Lounsbury & DeNeui, 1996) and present a key challenge for those interested in student affairs.

While CSOC could not be predicted by age, gender, race/ethnicity, or marital status, sexual orientation was a significant predictor throughout all models. While the sample of LGBT students was smaller (n = 49), these results provide impetus for future inquiry. Interestingly, the LGBT focus group participants did not identify discrimination on campus and reported being highly involved. This discrepancy could be an indicator of the focus group sample (i.e. more highly-involved and integrated students participated), self-report bias (e.g. students were more likely to be honest in the anonymous online survey than the face-to-face focus group), or demonstrate a difference between connections to the larger campus and connections to a sub-group (e.g. the LGBT campus organisation).

The qualitative data presented here help explain reasons for the lower CSOC in commuting students and identify possibilities for increasing commuter student connection. The attitude toward the university emerged as a key factor related to the development of CSOC, cutting across demographic characteristics and residence. The ‘in and out’ description in this study mirrors previous work (Jacoby, 2000) and presents a metaphor for understanding an approach that many students take to university life. Independent of commuting status and other demographic variables, many students may be simply disinterested in establishing a sense of community on campus. While the purpose of this study was not to examine the broad effects of this disconnection, the results do demonstrate that students with higher CSOC were more likely to report improved affect, greater self-efficacy, and higher life satisfaction. For those students who do wish to connect, transportation and scheduling issues emerged as barriers to increased participation in the campus environment, issues that are more pronounced among commuting students.

As Tinto (1997) highlighted, the social connections that students make on campus increase their likelihood of staying in school. Yet commuting students, like the majority of this sample, are less likely to develop those connections (Jacoby & Garland, 2004, p. 65; National Survey of Student Engagement, 2011). These results confirm this research by establishing a relationship between educational expectations and CSOC, although there were no significant differences between the high CSOC and low CSOC groups in their expectations to complete their degree. Further, these results highlight the relationship between CSOC and promoting student well-being. Students with higher CSOC reported greater positive affect, satisfaction with life, and self-efficacy, with lower reported negative affect. These results may have broad implications for student development and the promotion of subjective well-being and mental health.

Limitations

The current study used a convenience sample of students from one university. While the demographics of the study sample represent those of the overall university and add a unique perspective to the literature, the sample may not have captured the full range of student opinions and may not be generalisable to all other contexts. Further, the quantitative data presented here are based exclusively on self-report measures completed in an anonymous context (online) and may have been subject to social desirability and other biases. Finally, the data for this study were collected over the course of one year and may have failed to capture fluctuations in CSOC and other variables over time. The cross-sectional nature of the study prevents the assertion of a causal relationship between CSOC and the other variables.

Future research and intervention

Acknowledging the above limitations, this study further clearly established the relationship between CSOC and issues related to retention and student development. This raises a key question: how can university settings provide more opportunities to develop CSOC among commuting students? As shown in the literature, connection to the school campus is a vital element that is related to student retention (Jacoby & Garland, 2004; Thomas & Galambos, 2004; Tinto, 1997). Commuter campuses may need to place greater emphasis on addressing the unique needs of students who live off-campus. Clark (2006) has suggested that urban, commuter universities work hard to increase student interaction on campus, facilitate mentoring programmes, and maintain community ties across semesters in an effort to help the non-residential student experience the benefits of the campus community. CSOC is connected to the availability of academic support services with greater impact for students of colour (Falls, 2009).

Rather than basing college policies and interventions on the traditional, residential model, universities may want to consider multi-faceted interventions and opportunities that can impact both the involved and uninvolved members of the student body. Results here suggest that universities may re-think the timing of events. Students complained that opportunities for involvement in the evening were not accessible to them, with many students commuting to the campus from a great distance. Some universities have begun to address these concerns. At Mansfield University in Pennsylvania, administrators have created the ‘Commuter Connection’, a wing of a residence hall that has been converted to space where commuting students can hang out between classes and even reserve a room to stay the night (Lipka, 2007).

Future research might employ longitudinal methodology to explore how CSOC is related to student retention over the course of their college experience. Specific interventions and policies for promoting sense of community among commuting students should be rigorously evaluated to establish their efficacy to be disseminated to other contexts. Finally, given the multiple identities held by commuter students in multiple contexts, future research could explore the interaction of multiple ‘senses of community’ within these different settings and their cumulative effect on student outcomes.

Conclusion

In light of changing college demographics, interventions and activities designed to impact the well-being of students must also change. While sense of community is clearly a positive indicator that is related to student development and retention, commuter students are less likely to develop and maintain connection to the campus. Universities must find new, innovative ways to address these needs, helping commuter students find the support they need to overcome obstacles and complete their degree.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Chris Michael Kirk

Chris Michael Kirk, PhD, is a community psychologist who is currently completing a postdoctoral fellowship in applied community psychology at Atlantic Health System in New Jersey. This research was conducted while Chris was completing his PhD in community psychology at Wichita State University. Chris' interests include community-based participatory research, empowerment interventions, and health equity.

Rhonda K. Lewis

Rhonda K. Lewis, PhD, MPH, is a professor in the Psychology Department at Wichita State University. She is the coordinator of the community psychology PhD programme and her research interests are in the area of adolescent health and development, reducing educational inequity, and reducing health disparities.