University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Well-being, sense of belonging, and persistence among commuter college students in Hawai’i

(USC Thesis Other)

Well-being, sense of belonging, and persistence among commuter college students in Hawai’i

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
WELL-BEING, SENSE OF BELONGING, AND PERSISTENCE AMONG COMMUTER
COLLEGE STUDENTS IN HAWAI’I
by
Chris Rho

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2021

Copyright 2021 Chris Rho

ii
Acknowledgements
Thank you, dear Lord, for granting me the strength, focus, determination, and health to
complete my dissertation. I would like to give a big Mahalo to my dissertation chair, Dr. Alan
Green, for his unwavering support and guidance throughout my dissertation journey. Dr. Green
took me into deep water and I came out a better person, this was an experience that will be
forever etched in my memories. I would like to extend my sincerest gratitude to my committee
members, Dr. Tracy Tambascia and Dr. Vince Baldemor, for taking the time out of their
incredibly busy schedules and making my USC experience, a memorable one.
I absolutely must thank my Hawai’i Cohort Ohana for the encouragement and
camaraderie that we shared throughout all those late Friday nights and all day Saturdays, Fight
on!
I would have not been able to reach this academic milestone without having had the
pleasure of interacting and learning from all the wonderful people I’ve met over the years at UH
Maui College, Leeward Community College, and Kapi’olani Community College. Mahalo for
molding me into the educator I am today.
And I have saved the best for last, thank you, Mom, for your love, support, and guidance
throughout the years. Education and the continual pursuit of learning has been the foundation of
my personal development and I hope I’ve done you proud. I am so grateful and blessed to have
you as my mother. You are my inspiration, love you, Mom!

iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... ii
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................v
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ vi
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... vii
Chapter One: Overview of the Study ...............................................................................................1
Background of the Problem .................................................................................................2
Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................................13
Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................................................16
Research Questions ............................................................................................................17
Significance of the Study ...................................................................................................17
Limitations and Delimitations............................................................................................18
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................19
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................................21
Well-Being .........................................................................................................................23
Multi-Faceted Dimensions of Well-Being .........................................................................24
Well-Being in Higher Education .......................................................................................28
Physical Spaces ..................................................................................................................29
Peer Relationships ..............................................................................................................31
Faculty Relationships .........................................................................................................33
The Campus Community ...................................................................................................34
The Commuter College Student.........................................................................................36
Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................................41
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................48
Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................51
Qualitative Methods ...........................................................................................................52
Site, Population, and Sample .............................................................................................53
Sampling Method ...............................................................................................................54
Participant Selection ..........................................................................................................54
Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................55
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................55
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................56
Validity ..............................................................................................................................57
Role of the Researcher .......................................................................................................58
Participant Biographies ......................................................................................................59
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................59

iv
Chapter Four: Findings ..................................................................................................................60
Participant Demographics ..................................................................................................60
Emergent Themes ..............................................................................................................61
Summary of Findings .........................................................................................................73
Research Question 1 ..........................................................................................................74
Research Question 2 ..........................................................................................................80
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................86
Chapter Five: Discussions and Recommendations ........................................................................87
Discussion of Findings .......................................................................................................88
Implications for Practice ....................................................................................................96
Future Research ...............................................................................................................100
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................101
References ....................................................................................................................................103

v
List of Tables
Table 1: Relevant Demographic Information of Participants 61
Table 2: Research Questions, Findings, and Themes Matrix 73

vi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Examples of Interdependence Among Personal, Relational, And Collective
Domains in Sites, Signs, Sources, and Strategies of Well-Being 44
Figure 2: Conceptual Schema for Persistence or Dropout from College 48

vii
Abstract
This qualitative study sought to explore how student well-being and experiencing a sense of
belonging impact persistence among commuter community college students in Hawai’i. Well-
being was defined and evaluated by utilizing Prilleltensky’s model of well-being. Sense of
belonging was assessed through the lens of Tinto’s model of student retention. Eight students
were selected to participate in this study. Participant interviews were conducted by utilizing a
standardized open-ended interview format directed by an interview protocol. Based on the
results, the findings were categorized into four themes-the impact of college, personal life, and
work on well-being, the utility of well-being support systems, the importance of sense of
belonging on campus, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study offers three
recommendations for practice and suggestions for future research that support persistence among
commuter community college students.

1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Higher education has frequently been touted as a reliable pathway towards achieving the
American Dream for generations of Americans. Achieving academic excellence is often
characterized as a fairly straightforward process that simply entails voluntary participation on a
linear route destined for upward mobility and personal enrichment. Although academic
achievement may offer a foundation for economic success and personal freedom, the current
system fails to support the American Dream for all Americans. For instance, prevailing college
admissions policies often tilt towards favoring the academic selectivity of applicants coming
from socially and economically affluent demographics. In fact, “At the 193 most selective
colleges and universities in the United States, students from the richest quartile of the population
outnumber students from the poorest quartile by a ratio of fourteen to one” (David, 2016, p. 105).
Additionally, admissions preferences, such as legacy admits, further exacerbate the educational
inequality to university access. To give an example, “After conducting a study of applicants to
elite institutions, Espenshade (2004) found both athletes and legacies are roughly twice as likely
to be accepted as their nonathlete or nonlegacy counterparts” (Hulse, 2019, p. 353).
Another significant barrier to access to higher education for many college students is the
rising costs of tuition. Willie (2012) reported, “a thirty-year trend of steady increases in the
sticker price of higher education, since 1986, tuition has grown by nearly 500%, far outpacing
inflation” (pp. 1665–1666). In fact, according to the National Center for Education Statistics
(2010), during the 1985–1986 academic term, the average cost of college was $4,885 compared
to the 2016–2017 term, whereby the average cost of college increased to $23,091. Furthermore,
the characteristics of the typical college student have progressively shifted in recent decades,
resulting in an increase of women, minorities, and nontraditional students enrolled in higher

2
education. In spite of the barriers to higher education, community colleges continue to offer a
pathway to higher education for students who might not have attended college otherwise.
“Because of their convenient locations, open-access admission policies, and relatively
low costs, community colleges tend to enroll students who are more academically, economically,
and socially disadvantaged than do other postsecondary institutions” (Karp et al., 2008, p. 2). For
example, “nearly 30 percent of community college students are Black or Hispanic, as compared
to 20 percent of students enrolled in four-year public and private postsecondary institutions”
(Karp et al., 2008, p. 2). “Approximately one-fourth of community college students come from
families earning 125 percent or less of the federal poverty level, as compared to one-fifth of four-
year college students” (Karp et al., 2008, p. 2).
Historically, community colleges have served multiple missions for their constituents:
offering remediate courses for students in preparation for advanced higher education, enabling
students a low-cost option towards earning college credit for university transfers, providing
workforce training and development, and community enrichment. Consequently, community
colleges play a significant role within the postsecondary landscape by offering pathways for
personal development and upward mobility for millions of Americans today.
Background of the Problem
Recent enrollment statistics reveal the impact and expansive reach of community colleges
in providing college access to undergraduate students in the United States. To illustrate this
point, “Federal data on the year-round student population shows that 38 percent of
undergraduates attended public two-year colleges in 2016–17” (Community College Research
Center, 2017). Additionally, “Among all students who completed a degree at a four-year college
in 2015–16, 49 percent had enrolled at a two-year college in the previous 10 years” (Community

3
College Research Center, 2017). Unfortunately, mere access to higher education, in itself, does
not inevitably translate into degree completion for many aspiring community college students.
Poor persistence and graduation rates continue to plague community colleges. For example, “For
students who started college in fall 2015 at four-year public institutions, the persistence rate was
81.7 percent” (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, 2017, para. 6). In comparison,
“For students who started college in fall 2015 at two-year public institutions, the persistence rate
was 62.7 percent” (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, 2017, para. 8). To clarify
how the persistence rates were calculated in this report, the National Student Clearinghouse
Research Center (2017) noted, “The persistence rate is the percentage of students who return to
college at any institution, while the retention rate is the percentage of students who return to the
same institution” (para. 1). With regard to completion rates, the Completing College National
2018 Report (2018) presented the national college (degree) completion rates of the six-year
outcomes for students who began postsecondary education in fall 2012:
Among the four largest categories of institutions (four-year public, four-year private
nonprofit, two-year public and four-year private for-profit), students who started at four-
year private nonprofit institutions had the highest completion rates (76.1 percent),
followed by students at four-year public (65.7 percent), two-year public (39.2 percent)
and four-year private for-profit (37.3 percent) institutions (para. 29).
Current statistics on the persistence and graduation rates among the community colleges
in Hawai’i reveal even poorer results than the national averages. In fact, the University of Hawaii
Institutional Research Office prepared a report on the persistence and graduation rates for all
seven community colleges in the state of Hawaii for the fall 2017 cohort of first-time, full-time,
degree or certificate-seeking undergraduates. The persistence rate average for University of

4
Hawai’i community colleges is 13% (UH Institutional Research Office). The graduation rate
average for University of Hawai’i community colleges is 24% (UH Institutional Research
Office).
Despite the general knowledge of the importance of earning a college education, a
considerable number of students continue to drop out of college before degree completion,
particularly in two-year institutions. To give an example, particularly for first-year students, “the
American College Testing [ACT] reported a 48% dropout rate for students enrolled in public
two-year institutions and a 39% dropout rate for students in private two-year institutions”
(Nakajima et al., 2012, p. 592). As can be seen with these statistics, the low persistence/high
attrition rate for community colleges is a major nationwide problem.
“Student persistence and completion rates at community colleges are low, particularly
among low-income students, students of color, and first-generation students” (Community
College Research Center, 2019, para. 1). In particular, commuter community college students
must navigate challenging and often complex educational pathways despite managing added life
responsibilities or not having the time to utilize institutional resources that aid in student
persistence and degree completion. In fact, “Seventy-five percent of today’s students are juggling
some combination of families, jobs, and school while commuting to class” (Complete College
America, 2011, p. 2). Furthermore, “According to the U.S. Department of Education, only a
quarter go full-time, attend residential colleges, and have most of their bills paid by their
parents” (Complete College America, 2011, pp. 2–3). As a result, commuter community college
students may find themselves spending less time for study in campus spaces such as the library
or study halls, are limited in participating in group projects outside of classroom hours, or are

5
unable to use various student support services such as computer labs, tutors, and counselors due
to the limited availability hours of such services on campus.
As previously mentioned, recent enrollment data revealed lower persistence and
graduation statistics among community colleges than 4-year institutions. These data findings are
particularly concerning for stakeholders at community colleges in Hawai’i. For instance,
according to the Fall 2018 enrollment by UH News (2018), out of the 51,063 students enrolled in
the entire University of Hawai’i system, 26,819 are enrolled in community colleges, equaling
roughly 53% of all students enrolled. Moreover, a fundamental institutional characteristic
prevalent within the community colleges in Hawai’i is providing higher education to 2-year
commuter students statewide under the larger University of Hawai’i system. This is an important
distinction in comparison to the institutional missions of four-year universities in the University
of Hawai’i system.
There are differences between 4-year universities and community colleges and the
students that they serve. For example, 4-year universities have historically been residential
campuses that cater to a traditional student population. Pascarella and Terenzini (1998) stated,
“The hallmarks of these institutions include such factors as faculty with strong research or
scholarly orientations, selective admissions policies, and undergraduate student bodies that are
largely residential, full-time, traditional age, non-working, non-minority, and of middle- or
upper-middle-class social origins” (p. 156). Moreover, Choy (2002) described the traditional
college student as “one who earns a high school diploma, enrolls full-time immediately after
finishing high school, depends on parents for financial support, and either does not work during
the school year or works part-time” (p. 1).

6
Conversely, community colleges are typically public, non-residential institutions that
serve a commuter student population. “The community college mission is built on low tuition,
convenient location, flexible scheduling, an open-door admissions policy, and programs and
services designed to support at-risk students with a variety of social and academic barriers to
postsecondary success” (Calcagno et al., 2008, p. 632). Additionally, the community college
student population often includes a diverse range of distinct characteristics compared to
traditional college students. To illustrate this point, Pascarella (2006) stated, “the characteristics
of American postsecondary students and their institutional attendance patterns have changed
substantially in the past decade” (pp. 511–512). Consequently, postsecondary professionals can
no longer plan effective programs, policies, and procedures based solely on the assumption that
“the undergraduate student population is made up of White undergraduates from middle or
upper-middle-class homes, ages 18 to 22, attending 4-year institutions full time, living on
campus, not working, and having few if any family responsibilities” (Pascarella, 2006, p. 512).
Moreover, recent statistics reveal that a majority of undergraduate students actually have “non-
traditional” characteristics.
In a National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) study in 2000, “Almost three-
quarters of undergraduates are in some way ‘nontraditional’” (Choy, 2002, p. 3). The NCES
defines non-traditional status by students who display any of the following characteristics: not
enrolled in college after high school graduation, attends part-time, works full-time, financially
independent, single parenthood, claims dependents, and having a GED (as opposed to a high
school diploma; Choy, 2002, pp. 2–3). Although commuting to campus was not included as a
non-traditional characteristic on the NCES report, “Commuter students-defined as those who do
not live in institution-owned housing-comprise over 80 percent of the students in American

7
colleges and universities today” (Jacoby, 1990, p. 61). In fact, in a 2018 report, only “15.6% of
all undergraduate students lived on campus in the 2015–16 academic year” (Kelchen, 2018, para.
2). Additionally, “56.9% of students lived off campus away from their parent(s), while 27.5%
lived off campus with their parents” (Kelchen, 2018, para. 2). In sum, the majority of current
undergraduate students hold a nontraditional characteristic and are commuter students.
The literature review discussed in Chapter Two indicates shared features among
commuter students and the markers of nontraditional student characteristics such as “age, family
and work responsibilities, residence, and other life circumstances” (NCES, n.d., para. 1).
Generally speaking, commuter students are often enrolled part-time, do not live in campus
housing, are responsible for the care of children or younger siblings, and work more than 20
hours per week. Furthermore, the literature generally suggests that commuter students persist and
graduate at a much lower rate than their residential counterparts. To illustrate this point, Astin
(1984) pointed to a longitudinal study of college dropouts that endeavored to identify factors in
the college environment that significantly affect the student’s persistence in college. Among the
factors identified in this longitudinal study, “Probably the most important and pervasive was the
student’s residence. Living in a campus residence was positively related to retention, and this
positive effect occurred in all types of institutions and among all types of students regardless of
sex, race, ability, or family background” (Astin, 1984, p. 523). Astin (1984, p. 523) validated
these claims by citing similar results were obtained in earlier studies (Astin, 1973; Chickering,
1974) and have been subsequently replicated (Astin, 1977, 1982).
Commuter college students often face additional challenges and perhaps more difficult
barriers to graduation than residential college students. Such examples may include
transportation issues, juggling multiple life roles, and having different support systems

8
throughout the collegiate experience. For instance, while residential students can navigate their
entire academic experience within walking distances, “Commuter students are concerned with
traffic, road conditions, parking, their automobiles, transportation schedules, and safety issues
related to arriving home after dark” (Ortman, 1995, p. 5). In addition to transportation issues,
“commuter students often face added responsibilities such as familial obligations and working
longer hours while attending college. Studies have demonstrated that commuter students worked
more than residential students ” (Ortman, 1995, p. 10). In a survey conducted by the National
Survey of Student Engagement, first-year college students working more than 20 hours a week
were sorted into three categories; living on campus, walking commuters, and driving commuters.
The results indicated that the commuter student population significantly worked more than
residential students. In fact, the percentage of residential students working more than 20 hours a
week emerged at 3%, while walking commuter students rose to 22%, and driving commuter
students increased to 40% (Kuh et al., 2001, p. 5).
In addition to matters of mobility, transportation, and multiple life roles, commuter
students often have different, albeit less than ideal, support systems compared to residential
students. In fact, “Commuter students often lack the “supportive campus environment” that has
been identified as one of the benchmarks of effective educational practice” (Jacoby & Garland,
2004, p. 64). “As a result, the support networks for commuter students generally exist off, rather
than on, campus including: parents, partners, children, siblings, employers, coworkers, and
friends in the community” (Jacoby & Garland, 2004, p. 64). In contrast, residential students
generally have easier access to campus-related support systems such as counselors, tutors,
mentors, peers, and faculty and academic programming opportunities such as associations and
clubs. Although non-institutional individuals may be sources of support for commuter students,

9
these significant others may not embody the ideal system that would adeptly understand and
meet commuter students’ nuanced academic needs.
As the undergraduate student population is increasingly non-traditional and composed of
a large number of commuter students, further research is necessary to ensure that institutional
resources, policies, and practices support these students’ needs. Unfortunately, there appears to
be a gap in the literature on these students. For instance, an ERIC search on academic journal
articles using the key term “commuter students” yielded 190 results. In a similar manner, using
the key term “residential students” yielded 1,365 results. Although the extent of existing
literature is relatively meager with regard to the needs of commuter students, a small number of
researchers have explored student outcomes relating to commuter students. For instance,
referring to data from a longitudinal study conducted by the Wabash National Study of Liberal
Arts Education (WNS), “students who were commuter students and attended a community
college (in contrast to students at research universities, regional universities, or liberal arts
colleges) had lower levels of psychological well-being than their peers who lived on campus”
(Biddex, 2015, p. 39). Additionally, “Engaging in campus activities remains difficult for
commuters, many of whom struggle with the competing nonacademic life demands such as work
and family” (Biddex, 2015, p. 1). The results of the WNS study may suggest that student
resources and campus community-building efforts may not be solidified at community colleges.
Biddex (2015) concluded, “The positive benefit to students’ psychological well-being that comes
from living on campus may suggest that community colleges should strive to engage commuter
students in ways that allow for the same sense of belonging and community found through a
residential program” (p. 40). Consequently, I consider student well-being and experiencing a

10
sense of belonging on campus important lenses to consider with regard to research concerning
commuter community college student success.
Although psychological well-being is an important sphere of overall well-being,
Prilleltensky (2005) denotes the interdependence among personal, relational, and collective
domains of well-being. These three interconnected domains of well-being may significantly
influence a commuter college student’s trajectory towards student success. Moreover, the
relationship between the various domains of well-being underpins the structure commuter
college students use to foster an overall sense of well-being measured by mental and physical
health and economic, relational, political, and environmental factors.
Referring to seminal research on student persistence and departure, the final version of
Tinto’s (1993) model of Institutional Departure consists of two systems: academic and social.
“Students need to be integrated into both systems to persist in their academic institutions.
Academic integration can be measured by the students’ grade performance and intellectual
development, while social integration is measured by students’ interaction with college society
(peers and faculty)” (Aljohani, 2016, p. 6). Accordingly, Tinto’s (1993) Institutional Departure
model posits that a student’s persistence or departure reflects his or her success or failure in
navigating the stages towards incorporation into the institution’s community. Therefore, this
study equally expresses the importance of furthering the advancement in research and analysis of
commuter community college students and their lived experiences involving a sense of
belonging within the academic and social realms of the collegiate environment.
Managing the inevitable challenges that coincide with college life has significant
implications on student well-being and academic success. Although faculty and academic
personnel play essential roles in supporting academic achievement, student well-being is an

11
important factor associated with academic results. To illustrate this point, “the college years can
be a time of heightened distress, with mental health problems disproportionately common in
college populations” (Moses et al., 2016, p. 346). In a recent survey, 30% of students reported
that stress and 21% reported that sleep difficulties negatively impacted their academic
performance (e.g., lower grade or dropped courses; Baldwin et al., 2017, p. 1). Additionally,
“Students are sometimes overwhelmed by the workload (this is especially true if they are mature,
part-time, commuters or carers), and their previous academic experiences may not have fully
prepared them for independent study” (GuildHE, 2018, p. 6). However, students who experience
sustained states of positive and healthy well-being may be better equipped to effectively cope
and function adaptively amidst the stressful demands of college life.
Many factors may contribute to the well-being of college students. “Studies of wellbeing
focus on factors that develop personal strengths, enhance growth of positive responses to
difficulty, and reinforce social and emotional foundations in the individual’s life” (Boazman et
al., 2012, p. 112). Moreover, “These factors include constructs such as wellbeing, hopefulness,
resiliency, gratitude, general self-efficacy, spirituality, disposition, and beliefs about
intelligence” (Boazman et al., 2012, p. 112). “Of particular relevance to student affairs
professionals is evidence that students’ well-being is positively associated with their
engagement, persistence, and success in higher education” (Moses et al., 2016, p. 346). For
example, “healthy students are more likely to do well in school, and more frequent participation
in physical activities can reduce anxiety, stress, and depression” (Higher Education Today,
2018). Capturing more research data on the facets that enhance student well-being can provide
higher education professionals with information that can improve the student experience.

12
“A growing body of research has linked students’ sense of belonging on their campuses
to a number of important outcomes, including their persistence in college and even their well-
being” (Supiano, 2018, para 1). In fact, “the benefits of experiencing a sense of belonging to a
community have been extensively demonstrated in a variety of contexts, and include increases in
students’ skill development, perceived self-efficacy, motivation, engagement, involvement,
persistence, and academic success” (Fernandes et al., 2017, p. 32). Additionally, “the importance
of developing a community where every student feels valued cannot be overstated. Clubs,
societies, social events and academic groups all support students’ feeling of belonging, which is
vital in them seeking help when they need it most” (GuildHE, 2018, p. 6). Moreover, “sense of
belonging is related to college students’ cognition, affect, and behaviors. Students can think, feel,
and act like they belong” (The Ohio State University, n.d.). “For example, a student who thinks
(cognition) and feels (affect) that they belong in class is more likely to show up to class
(behavior) than a student who does not think and feel that they belong” (The Ohio State
University, n.d.).
Prior studies offer evidence and insights indicating the value of student participation in
extra-curricular and campus activities on commuter college students’ engagement, persistence,
and academic success. Notably, “Lima (2014) reported a strong positive relationship between
commuter student involvement in extra-curricular activities and their sense of belonging at
university” (Fernandes et al., 2017, p. 32). Additionally, “In a study of Asian/Pacific Islander
student satisfaction, Orsuwan and Cole (2007) found that greater social connectedness or sense
of belonging had a significant association with greater educational satisfaction” (Jensen, 2011, p.
3). Moreover, “Dixon, Rayle, and Chung (2007) also found that “mattering” to the college

13
environment, defined as the “experience of others depending on us, being interested in us, and
being concerned with our fate” was linked to persistence” (Jensen, 2011, p. 3).
College impact research also suggests a linkage between student engagement with
student persistence and degree completion. In fact, “The more actively engaged students are—
with college faculty and staff, with other students, with the subject matter they are studying—the
more likely they will stick with their studies and to attain their academic goals” (McClenney et
al., 2012, p. 1). The connection between student engagement and positive student outcomes has
been validated in numerous studies and reports. For example, Pascarella and Terenzini affirmed,
from their examination of 20 years of research, that “students who are actively involved in both
academic and out-of-class activities gain more from the college experience than those who are
not so involved” (Center for Community College Student Engagement, n.d., para 4).
Additionally,
Results from the 2008 National Survey of Student Engagement at one research university
found that higher levels of engagement in a variety of curricular and co-curricular
activities significantly contribute to cumulative GPA and students’ perception of the
overall academic experience. (Webber et al., 2013, p. 591)
Statement of the Problem
Research on why student persistence and degree completion rates at community colleges
in Hawai’i are considerably lower than nationwide averages is relatively sparse. However, by
utilizing previous research literature relating to factors that impede student persistence and
degree completion among commuter college students in the United States, such as college
affordability issues, I drew inferences from such findings to connect factors that may influence
student persistence among commuter college students in Hawai’i.

14
College affordability, both tuition and non-tuition expenses, is a problem facing many
commuter college students in Hawaii. For instance, in Hawaii, “the per capita income in 2017
dollars is $32,511 and are now required to pay at least $5,000 a year for a community college
and more than $12,000 a year at a four-year university” (United States Census Bureau, 2017;
Kapi’olani Community College, 2019; University of Hawaii Manoa, 2019). Furthermore, the
cost of living in Hawaii is among the most expensive within the United States. According to a
recent U.S. News & World Report (2018), rankings of all 50 states, “Hawaii is ranked with
having the 2nd highest cost of living and the highest cost for housing” (para. 3).
In addition to the reality that commuter college students must often work to make ends
meet, a growing number of students continue to experience overwhelming hardships such as
food and housing insecurity. To illustrate this point, 43,000 student respondents from 66 colleges
and universities, including 33 community colleges, in a 2017 survey revealed “42% of
community college students were food-insecure in the 30 days preceding the survey and 46% of
community college students were housing insecure in the survey” (Goldrick-Rab et al., 2018, p.
3). In another survey at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, “21% of students surveyed were
food-insecure, while 24% were at risk of food insecurity” (Chaparro et al., 2009, p. 2097). In
sum, “The data shows that basic needs insecurities disproportionately affect marginalized
students and are associated with long work hours and higher risk of unemployment” (Goldrick-
Rab et al., 2018, p. 3). With regard to basic needs, Hawaii has a considerable gap between what
renters earn and what they need to afford housing. To give an example, a student working 25
hours per week at the minimum wage in Hawai’i would earn $1,010 monthly while the median
monthly gross residential rent in Hawaii was $1,573 in 2017 according to the Census ACS
survey (Hawaii State Department of Labor & Industrial Relations, 2017; Department of

15
Numbers, 2017). As a result, bearing the expenses associated with college affordability imposes
tremendous challenges for commuter college students residing in Hawai’i.
Coping with staggering college affordability issues and managing the high cost of living
in Hawai’i, commuter college students must continually prevail over considerable difficulties to
persist and graduate from college. Pairing these life demands with the rigor of college academia
creates an environment that impacts commuter college students’ well-being in Hawai’i. “Well-
being may be defined as a positive state of affairs in which the personal, relational, and collective
needs and aspirations of individuals and communities are fulfilled” (Prilleltensky, 2005, p. 54).
Prilleltensky (2005) further added,
There are many aspects of the psychosocial, economic, political, and physical
environment that influence the state of well-being; and there are many aspects of well-
being that reach far beyond health and encroach into the realm of values, meaning, and
spirituality. (p. 54)
Additionally, commuter college students are often limited with the amount of time spent on
campus and may experience the feeling of not mattering or belonging on campus. In fact,
researchers “frequently point to the importance of “sense of belonging” in the departure
decisions” among college students (Hoffman et al., 2003, p. 228). By seeking to understand the
commuter college student experience through the lenses of well-being and sense of belonging on
campus, we can further understand the impact that these factors have on student persistence and
degree completion within community colleges in Hawai’i.

16
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this qualitative study is to determine how student well-being and a sense
of belonging within the campus environment contribute to student persistence outcomes at
community colleges in Hawai’i. Although data on persistence rates in higher education exist,
research on student persistence outcomes at community colleges, particularly in Hawai’i, has
been meager. Furthermore, given the isolated, geographical location of Hawai’i, along with its
uniquely diverse composition of residents, the applicability of existing research literature
invariably yields inherent limitations to higher education settings specific to Hawai’i. This study
offers research to fill the gap in literature relating to student persistence outcomes at commuter
community colleges in Hawai’i.
Referring to extensive research on student retention, this study identified well-being and
a sense of belonging as key determinants in student persistence. Therefore, a challenge for higher
education professionals is encouraging and supporting student well-being and promoting a
campus environment that fosters a sense of belonging for all students to advance student
flourishing and academic achievement. Consequently, two theories were utilized to guide this
study. Prilleltensky’s (2005) model of well-being offers a multi-faceted approach that integrates
three dimensions of well-being that include personal, relational, and collective domains.
Secondly, Tinto’s (1993) student retention framework offers a model that explains the processes
of academic and social interaction between the individual and the institution and its effects on
college persistence. This study worked within these conceptual frameworks to determine how
student well-being and academic and social integration affect student persistence. Moreover, this
study utilized a qualitative research methodology and included findings gathered from
interviews.

17
Research Questions
Two research questions were central in this study:
1. How do commuter community college students think about their well-being relative to
their academic responsibilities, personal life, and work commitments?
2. How do commuter community college students think about their sense of belonging
relative to the campus environment?
Significance of the Study
Given the necessity and importance of attaining some form of higher education in today’s
progressive knowledge economy, higher education professionals continually seek to improve
methods that support students in achieving college certificates and degrees. As a result, the focus
of this study was on increasing student persistence, which, in turn, increases the probability of
degree completion. However, existing literature on student persistence has primarily been aimed
at 4-year universities that cater to traditional, residential students. In contrast, this study centered
on the public community college environment with a focus on non-residential, commuter
students. Moreover, research has indicated stark differences between traditional, residential
students and non-residential commuter students with regard to the college experience.
Furthermore, differing institutional types, such as 4-year residential universities and
public commuter community colleges, offer a range of diverse college experiences that are often
incomparable in many respects. Additionally, although the literature on student persistence
outcomes at community colleges is sparsely available, even fewer studies are available that
specifically address this issue in Hawai’i. Therefore, this study fills the gap in the literature on
improving student persistence outcomes among non-traditional, commuter students attending
community colleges in Hawai’i.

18
By addressing the research questions, this study provided evidence and insights that may
promote student well-being and enhance students’ sense of belonging within the campus
environment. A direct outcome of this study’s research findings may contribute towards higher
rates of student academic achievement and persistence. Additionally, noting that the state of
Hawai’i has seven community colleges, the research findings of this study can be applied
statewide. Moreover, the data gathered from this study involved input from a diverse collection
of commuter community college students, thereby offering a compilation of distinct viewpoints
with interrelated student commonalities, all established within the University of Hawai’i system.
Limitations and Delimitations
Due to the nature of qualitative research and the purposeful sampling selection of
interview participants from one community college on Oahu, the generalizability of data results
may be limited. Nonetheless, “In qualitative research, a single case or a small, nonrandom,
purposeful sample is selected precisely because the researcher wishes to understand the
particular in depth, not to find out what is generally true of the many” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016,
p. 181). However, this study was intentionally crafted to include rich and descriptive data to
provide sufficient context for the reader to decide if the findings may be applicable to the
reader’s situation. Additionally, implementing a similar research process with other community
colleges throughout the state of Hawai’i may strengthen the user generalizability of the research
findings by determining if similar emergent themes found in this study were present in other
studies conducted in Hawai’i.
Another limitation of this study is its reliance on the feedback from the interview
participants. This may be a concern because interviews are vulnerable to self-report bias. To deal
with potential self-report bias, I employed triangulation of a diverse spectrum of interview

19
participants. The strategy of triangulation “reduces the risk of chance associations and of
systematic biases due to a specific method and allows a better assessment of the generality of the
explanations that one develops” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 128). Furthermore, triangulation involves
“using multiple investigators, sources of data, or data collection methods to confirm emerging
findings” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 258). As a result, data for this study included a diverse
range of interview participants from the community college. Additionally, to account for
potential researcher bias in the data collection process, this study required verbatim transcripts of
the audio recordings from the interviews to ensure preciseness in analyzing all interview
responses.
This research study did not include interviews with students who were not enrolled at
Laulima Community College on O’ahu. Due to the time constraints, I was unable to localize and
conduct additional interviews outside of the Laulima community college.
This study was conducted in one of the most isolated areas in the world: Hawai’i.
Additionally, due to Hawai’i’s unique cultural, social, and geographical backgrounds, the
research findings of this study may be limited in its applicability and user generalizability in
relation to other regions of the United States.
Conclusion
Community colleges continue to be a beacon of hope for non-traditional, varied-income,
commuter students who would not otherwise have had the opportunity to higher education.
Although encouraging, persistence rates at community colleges have been significantly lower
than at traditional 4-year universities. Furthermore, persistence rates at the University of
Hawai’i’s system of community colleges have been disproportionally lower than the national
average, and research on commuter college students’ persistence rates in Hawai’i is limited. This

20
study was intended to contribute to the literature on commuter community college students’
persistence in Hawai’i. The following chapter provides a review of the relevant literature.

21
Chapter Two: Literature Review
The central purpose of this chapter is to review the research and literature relevant to
factors that may contribute to student persistence outcomes at Laulima Community College in
Hawai’i. Referring to Chapter One, research statistics from National Student Clearinghouse
Research Center (2017) revealed that the persistence rates at two-year institutions were nearly
20% lower than four-year universities and degree completion rates at two-year institutions were
nearly 37% lower than four-year universities. Furthermore, the University of Hawaii Institutional
Research Office (2018) indicated that the persistence rates among the two-year institutions in
Hawai’i were substantially lower than these nationwide averages.
To identify central factors that distinctly influence community colleges students’
persistence rates in Hawai’i, this study acknowledged vital, fundamental characteristics of an
archetypical community college student in Hawai’i. As evidenced in the review of relevant
literature, there are stark differences between the student characteristics of students attending
two-year institutions in comparison to the traditional, 4-year residential university model. In fact,
an NCES study in 2000 reported that the majority of undergraduate students possess, in some
manner, a nontraditional characteristic and are commuter students. Additionally, the literature
generally suggests that commuter college students’ concerns pose unique and distinct challenges
that may impede their persistence and degree completion. Such examples may include juggling
multiple life roles, transportation issues, increased work commitments, and coping with the high
cost of living in Hawai’i. Another difficulty is not having opportunities to spend time on campus
to utilize university support systems and engage in meaningful collegiate experiences such as
group class projects outside of class hours and various campus community events. In total, with
these added life demands and the rigors of higher education, the cumulative effect significantly

22
impacts student well-being and how these students experience a sense of belonging on campus.
Therefore, the literature review examines how student well-being and experiencing a sense of
belonging on campus may affect student persistence at Laulima community college in Hawai’i.
After considerable deliberation over an extensive review of literature on student well-
being and student retention, this study utilized a conceptual framework guided by two essential
models; Prilleltensky’s theory of well-being and Tinto’s model of student retention.
Prilleltensky’s (2005) model of well-being involves a holistic approach in defining an
individual’s overall well-being rooted in three main realms: personal, relational, and collective
well-being. With an understanding of the said characteristics and life circumstances associated
with commuter community college students, Prilleltensky (2005) model of well-being
incorporates a multi-level analysis of an individual’s well-being beginning with a perspective on
personal health and wellness, the impact of social and relational networks embedded in a
student’s environment, and the significance of meaningful connections within a larger
community. With regard to academic student retention literature, Tinto’s (1975; 1982;
1987;1993) model of student retention offers a theoretical framework for understanding student
retention behavior. Within the model, Tinto theorized that students’ involvement within the
social and academic environment of the college is vital to their success. In fact, Tinto (1993)
suggested a student’s sense of academic and social belonging impacts retention and graduation,
and this sense of belonging may be influenced through the interactions within the academic and
social environments at the college. In sum, the analysis of the literature involved examining
themes associated with the multi-faceted dimensions of well-being, well-being in higher
education, commuter college students’ characteristics, and an established theoretical model on
college student retention.

23
Well-Being
From the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle to the modern-day health practitioner and
scholar, the topic of well-being has been researched extensively across vast epochs of time,
culture, and societies. This section focuses on the overall concepts of well-being and the nuances
of an emerging well-being paradigm: a model that integrates the dimensions of personal,
relational, and collective well-being.
Defining what well-being is and is not is often a vague preconception that requires
context to arrive at an understanding of what constitutes well-being. For example, per the Oxford
English Dictionary, well-being is defined as “The state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy.”
Although straightforward in its definition, one may ponder several questions such as, how does
one measure comfort? Who determines health? What constitutes happiness? And more
importantly, how will this study assess the well-being of college students? To further expand on
the definition and concepts of well-being, this study points to a well-being concept from the
Centers for Disease and Control (n.d.) for further clarification:
There is no consensus around a single definition of well-being, but there is general
agreement that at minimum, well-being includes the presence of positive emotions and
moods (e.g., contentment, happiness), the absence of negative emotions (e.g., depression,
anxiety), satisfaction with life, fulfillment and positive functioning. (para. 7)
Additionally, the (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, n.d.) stated, “Researchers from
different disciplines have examined different aspects of well-being that include the following:
• Physical well-being.
• Economic well-being.
• Social well-being.

24
• Emotional well-being.
• Psychological well-being.
• Life satisfaction.” (para. 7)
In summary, although the CDC offers a more comprehensive viewpoint of what
constitutes well-being compared to the definition provided in the Oxford English Dictionary,
both interpretations suggest that well-being is largely measured at the individual level. However,
studies indicate that factors, such as environment, social relationships, and community, also
contribute to conditions of overall well-being. In fact, overall well-being encompasses multiple
dimensions that include personal, relational, and collective domains.
Multi-Faceted Dimensions of Well-Being
In the initial analysis of well-being, the concept of well-being began at the level of the
individual, such as one’s physical and mental health. Although essential, personal well-being
merely constitutes a portion of overall well-being. In fact, overall well-being includes a multi-
faceted framework that interconnects individual well-being with relational and collective
domains. To further expand on this multi-faceted approach to well-being, Prilleltensky (2005)
offered a description, “Well-being may be defined as a positive state of affairs in which the
personal, relational, and collective needs and aspirations of individuals and communities are
fulfilled” (p. 54).
Due to the individual nature of personal well-being, the process of assessing personal
well-being may vary within individuals, thus, generating a subjective view of one’s well-being.
Additionally, one’s personal well-being may also fluctuate over time, depending on the distinct
phases of one’s life. Moreover, each person may view their experiences differently, although
situations and circumstances may be similar among comparable people. This variance in an

25
individual’s belief with regard to the state of well-being may be described as subjective well-
being.
Subjective Well-Being
Subjective well-being may be described as a personal evaluation of the quality of one’s
life, either in its totality or for a period of one’s life. Diener et al. (2003) stated, “The field of
subjective well-being (SWB) comprises the scientific analysis of how people evaluate their
lives—both at the moment and for longer periods such as for the past year” (p. 404).
Additionally, “These evaluations include people’s emotional reactions to events, their moods,
and judgments they form about their life satisfaction, fulfillment, and satisfaction with domains
such as marriage and work” (Diener et al., 2003, p. 404). Extensive literature on SWB proposes a
vast spectrum of varied causal factors that influence a person’s well-being. For example,
“Among the factors shown to influence SWB are thought processes; personality; religiosity; self-
esteem; relationship harmony; and goal attainment” (Graham, 2010, p. 758). Furthermore, “The
varied determinants of SWB include factors such as age, race, sex, education, income, social
relationships, and employment. Individual SWB depends on achieving satisfaction in numerous
domains, including health, finances, leisure, and work” (Graham, 2010, p. 758). Moreover,
measurements of SWB outcomes across varied populations have routinely been guided by the
implementation of questionnaires, surveys, interviews, and observations.
Referring to the literature on SWB, it is evident that a considerable swath of factors may
influence a person’s SWB and, ultimately, one’s quality of life. However, what is not apparent in
the literature is the link between specific, identifiable factors of SWB that may directly influence
academic success among community college students. Although the literature points to many
factors that may aid in assessing SWB, the literature does not provide definitive factors of SWB

26
that may aid in developing solutions that would increase student success, persistence, and college
completion. This study’s aim was to discover conclusive factors associated with SWB that may
contribute to the academic performances of community college students in Hawai’i.
Furthermore, research studies suggest that six dimensions may contribute to one’s well-
being. The six dimensions included “personality, circumstances, social relationships, behavioral
activities, cognitive activities and volitional activities” (Caunt et al., 2012, p. 1). Additionally,
“The most striking finding in this study was the dominance of the social relationships dimension.
The importance respondents gave social relationships serves as a reminder of what is already
known about relationships” (Caunt et al., 2012, pp. 15–16). “People are happier when they are
around others, relationships are likely necessary for happiness and social support can enhance the
effectiveness of happiness interventions” (Caunt et al., 2012, p. 16). Consequently, the
importance of relationships suggests that a noteworthy marker of overall well-being includes the
domain of relational well-being.
Relational Well-Being
The concept of relational well-being suggests that the presence, or lack thereof, of
relational connections in people’s lives substantially impacts the degree of one’s overall well-
being. White (2015, p. 6) indicated that relational well-being “is understood in collective terms,
as not the property of individuals but something that belongs to and emerges through
relationships with others.” White (2015) further added, “Some scholars use the term relational
wellbeing to highlight the significance to wellbeing of the health and quality of relationships and
the work people put into maintaining them” (p. 6). Moreover, an added benefit of relational well-
being is the social support that a person receives. The impact of social support cannot be
understated in promoting and maintain one’s overall well-being. In fact, “There is now a

27
substantial body of evidence that indicates that the extent to which social relationships are strong
and supportive is related to the health of individuals who live within such social contexts”
(Berkman, 1995, p. 245). Berkman (1995 further added, “For social support to be health
promoting, it must provide both a sense of belonging and intimacy and must help people to be
more competent and self-efficacious” (p. 245). Furthermore, “There is empirical evidence to
suggest that the well-being of relationships (relationships where there is caring, compassion, and
formal and informal supports), for instance, has beneficial effects on persons” (Prilleltensky,
2005, p. 54). Moreover, “Relationships, in turn, are sites where exchanges of material (money,
physical help) and psychological (affection, caring, nurturance) resources and goods occur”
(Prilleltensky, 2005, p. 54). Although the literature on relational well-being is useful, connecting
the impact of relational well-being to positive student outcomes at community colleges is vague.
To further understand how relational well-being may support and strengthen student
learning outcomes, identifying key relationships that support student persistence is vital. This
study’s research focused on exploring the vital relationships within the community college
environment that impact and support persistence. In addition to the significance of cultivating
and maintaining key relationships that support achievement, environmental factors within the
community collective may further impact students’ well-being.
Collective Well-Being
Wiseman and Brasher (2008)., defined collective well-being as “the combination of
social, economic, environmental, cultural, and political conditions identified by individuals and
their communities as essential for them to flourish and fulfill their potential” (p. 358). In a
similar manner, Prilleltensky (2005) stated, “Communities, as sites of well-being, embody
characteristics such as affordable housing, clean air, accessible transportation, and high-quality

28
healthcare and education facilities” (p. 54). Prilleltensky (2005) further added, “Manifestations
of collective well-being include a fair and equitable allocation of bargaining powers, resources,
and obligations in society, gender and race equality, employment opportunities, access to
nutritious foods at reasonable prices, safety, public transportation, a clean environment, and
peace” (p. 55). In a somewhat different vein, “Maybery et al. (2009) describes collective well-
being as community resilience of residents coping with their stressful circumstances. They
regard social connectedness and social ties as critical determinants for community resilience and
well-being” (Kee et al., 2016, p. 8). Moreover, “There is a wealth of research documenting the
deleterious or advantageous consequences of deprived or prosperous communities on
individuals, as the case may be” (Prilleltensky, 2005, p. 54).
The literature review on collective well-being provides a valuable outlet of information
pointing to the significance of how supportive communal conditions contribute to student
flourishing and may directly impact academic achievement and success in higher education.
Consequently, the following review of literature continues to delve into well-being at the
collective level, focusing on the higher education landscape.
Well-Being in Higher Education
Undoubtedly, academic achievement and degree completion are central goals among
aspiring college students, and student persistence is an important action that can determine the
attainment of reaching that objective. For the purpose of this study, student persistence may be
expressed as the continual pursuit of a college student in a degree or certificate program that
leads to the completion of an academic program. In a similar manner, Tinto (2017) stated, “It is
the quality that allows someone to continue in pursuit of a goal even when challenges arise. A
student has to want to persist to degree completion to expend considerable effort to do so” (p. 2).

29
Additionally, the campus environment plays a pivotal role in providing a setting that supports
student persistence and college completion in higher education institutions. In fact, educational
literature on student success (e.g. passing grades, persistence, retention, graduation) revealed a
correlation between ideal campus environments and progressive student flourishing and well-
being. Moreover, the following review of literature offers several themes that support student
well-being on college campuses, such as physical spaces and facilities, peer and faculty
relationships, and campus support services.
Physical Spaces
“From architecture to accessibility, the campus environment impacts student perception
and behaviour and becomes part of their academic experience” (Pizzuti-Ashby & Alary, 2008, p.
3). Contemporary literature suggests that a correlation between students and the campus learning
environment directly impacts student satisfaction and well-being. In fact, “One of the dimensions
of wellbeing concerns how people are satisfied with their access to services, amenities, their
views on the physical environment and how they perceive their social setting” (Muhammad et
al., 2013, p. 1161). Muhammad et al. (2013) further added,
Students mainly conduct their academic activities within buildings. As is the case with
any type of building, the indoor environmental conditions (IEC) are bound to influence
the user activities. Many aspects of indoor environment such as thermal factors, lighting
aspects, moisture, noise and so on are stressors whose exposure can cause both short-term
and long-term effect. (p. 1161)
In short, indoor environmental factors, albeit subtle but essential, are critical on-campus
qualities that unquestionably affect student productivity. Within the context of college campuses
in Hawai’i, the yearly temperature is considerably humid and hot. Thus, properly operating air-

30
conditioned college classrooms and buildings are vital necessities that support student learning
and productivity.
In addition to indoor environmental factors, the physical campus itself provides
opportunities that support overall student well-being. For example, peaceful settings on college
campuses that include natural foliage such as trees and green pastures offer places that are
conducive for reflection and renewal. Samhat (n.d.) mentioned,
Having natural places to take a walk can restore their psychological frame of mind and
improve their attention. Studies have shown that natural environments promote physical
activity and stress relief. On college campuses, they offer areas for students to
decompress. (para.11)
Additionally, “A basic premise for the design of public space in campus is to provide a
meaningful place for basic student needs such as comfort, relaxation and social encounter. The
public space for students is the place where they may act more freely than under constraints of
the study place” (Hanan, 2013, p. 310). Hanan (2013) further added, “A meaningful space offers
people to make connections between the place, their personal lives and the larger world. A
meaningful space is relating the physical setting to the social context” (p. 310). Undoubtedly,
public spaces on college campuses can offer extensive opportunities for student flourishing,
social encounters, and self-care. However, most studies often base their findings through
academic settings at residential, 4-year universities that primarily serve a student population
comprised of traditionally full-time, residential students. As noteworthy as the research findings
may be, the generalizability and user transferability of such research findings to community
college settings are nominal. For example, public commuter community colleges are not
designed to provide a campus infrastructure similar to that of their residential, 4-year university

31
counterparts, such as athletic stadiums, extensive cafeterias, medical, health, and wellness
centers, and housing accommodations. Additionally, the student populations between community
colleges and four-year universities are often completely different with regard to student
characteristics and demographics. For example, community college students are predominantly
commuters who are often enrolled part-time and spend considerably less time on campus.
Consequently, further research on the effectiveness of how physical spaces at community
colleges can be used to foster student well-being is warranted.
Nonetheless, the physical spaces that form the campus environment provide a platform
for students to acquire knowledge, advance personal development, and cultivate social
connections. Moreover, encouraging students to pursue social connections within the campus
setting, such as interactions with peers and faculty members, may further strengthen student
well-being.
Peer Relationships
Academic research suggests that peer relationships among college students can
significantly support academic achievement and student well-being. In fact, “More recent
research confirms the important role of peers in the development of college students. Interaction
with peers is positively associated with many student outcomes such as grade point average,
intellectual self-esteem, and interpersonal skills” (Swenson-Goguen et al., 2010, p. 320).
Additionally, peer relationships may eventually blossom into cordial friendships. Swenson-
Goguen et al. (2010) mentioned, “Friends can help an individual to adjust to a new college
environment and thus having a greater number of new college friends may contribute to positive
academic outcomes” (p. 321). Moreover, “a friend in the new college environment can be an
effective supporter since that friend is experiencing similar changes, which benefits the social

32
and academic development of students as well as their sense of attachment to the new
institution” (Swenson-Goguen et al., 2010, pp. 321–322). However, developing peer
relationships among commuter college students may be particularly challenging. For example,
due to commuter college students’ multiple life roles and non-academic obligations, their time on
campus is often limited and may simply entail attending classes and promptly leaving afterward.
Consequently, the lack of time spent on campus offer few opportunities to develop extensive
peer relationships outside of the classroom.
Correspondingly, “Research suggests that causes of attrition are multifaceted,
encompassing both individual and institutional elements” (Maunder, 2018, p. 756). Additionally,
“Reported difficulties with social relationships such as loneliness and lack of social integration
also contribute to attrition. It seems therefore that institutional experiences at the academic and
social level impact on the extent to which individuals become integrated into the university”
(Maunder, 2018, p. 757). With regard to university integration, Dwyer et al. (2004, as cited in
Sollitto et al., 2013) highlighted the importance of classroom connectedness. “According to
Dwyer et al., when students consider the climate to be supportive and cooperative, they feel
connected with their peers, they develop friendships with each other, and they enjoy their time in
the course with their classmates” (Sollitto et al., 2013, p. 318). Furthermore,
Students who perceive a sense of connectedness in the classroom are less likely to be
inconsiderate of their classmates, reduce their levels of communication apprehension,
report greater levels of communication satisfaction, and report gains in their affective and
cognitive learning. (Sollitto et al., 2013, pp. 318–319)
As a result, the classroom often becomes the central hub of all social interactions for the
commuter college student.

33
Bearing in mind that research literature has suggested a positive correlation between the
quality of peer relationships to student satisfaction and well-being, faculty to student
relationships may also contribute to favorable student outcomes and overall well-being.
Faculty Relationships
“Faculty members are thought to be one of the major socializing agents in the college
environment, and it has been widely heralded that frequent and positive interactions between
students and faculty enhance students’ persistence and retention in higher education” (Kim &
Lundberg, 2015, p. 289). In addition to reported increases in persistence and retention rates,
college impact research has indicated that many improved student outcomes have transpired due
to positive faculty-student relationships. For example, Hoffman (2014 stated, “Positive student-
faculty interactions have long been associated with positive outcomes for students, including
increased effort, greater student engagement, and a higher level of content acquisition” (p. 13).
Similarly, “College impact research has continually demonstrated a positive relationship between
student-faculty interaction and a broad range of student educational outcomes; including
academic achievement, educational aspirations, intellectual growth, and academic satisfaction”
(Kim & Sax, 2007, p. 2). Additionally, “Research also shows that the positive benefits of the
interaction are not limited to classroom performance. Such interaction has a positive effect on
students’ self-concept, persistence, and satisfaction with non-academic life” (Kim & Sax, 2007,
p. 2). “Although most interactions with faculty tend to occur within the formal classroom setting,
when informal student-faculty interactions occur outside of the classroom, students have been
found to be motivated, engaged, and actively involved in the learning process” (Romsa et al.,
2017, p. 87).

34
Whether a relationship between faculty and student develops in the classroom, through a
mentorship, or a social friendship, “research reports that college students experience meaningful
communication events with their teachers that alter their relationships. More specifically, these
students report experiencing relational turning points, or events or occurrences associated with
change, with their college instructors” (Docan-Morgan, 2011, p. 21). With regard to relational
turning points, Docan-Morgan and Manusov offer six categories: “instrumental (discussion of
grade, discussion of course assignment, and discussion of course policy/rule), personal
(discussion of coursework and personal information; discussion of common interest;), rhetorical
(lecture topic/claim; teaching style), ridicule/discipline, locational, and other person turning point
events” (Docan-Morgan, 2011, p. 22). Consequently, faculty members should utilize
opportunities to develop positive relational turning points with students to enhance student
outcomes. Productive faculty-student relationships, particularly with commuter college students,
may significantly contribute to positive student outcomes, student persistence, and degree
completion; particularly, within the campus community environment.
The Campus Community
Numerous theoretical frameworks underline the importance of student integration and
experiencing a sense of belonging within the campus community and its impact on student
success. For example, “Tinto’s theory of student integration is arguably the most frequently cited
model of college student success” (Museus et al., 2016, pp. 769–770). Museus et al. (2016)
stated, “Tinto argued that students’ levels of integration into the academic and social subsystems
of campus are positively related to student persistence and degree completion” (p. 770).
Additionally, Finn’s participation identification model posits the importance of student
participation and identification within the campus setting in determining the probability of

35
student success. “Participation referred to behaviors that engage students in learning activities
and keep students on-task” (Christenson et al., 2012, p. 194). Moreover, “Identification referred
to students’ attitudes about school, in particular, feelings of belongingness and valuing.
Belongingness was students’ sense of being a part of the school environment and that school is
an important part of their own experience” (Christenson et al., 2012, p. 194). In a similar manner,
Belongingness has been described as “feelings that one is a significant member of the school
community, is accepted and respected in school, has a sense of inclusion in school, and includes
school as part of one’s self-definition” (Christenson et al., 2012, p. 195). In a similar vein,
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theorizes the universal human need for belongingness and love.
Referring to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory, “After the physiological needs and the needs
for survival and for safety and security have been met, an individual can be motivated to meet
the needs represented at higher levels of the pyramid” (Martin & Joomis, 2007, p. 2).
Particularly, “The third level of the pyramid are needs associated with love and belonging. These
needs are met through satisfactory relationships—relationships with family members, friends,
peers, classmates, teachers, and other people with whom individuals interact” (Martin & Joomis,
2007, p. 2).
College campuses, and the support services available to students, further encourage
student well-being. For example, college campuses provide on-campus safety and police patrol
to ensure students’ safety and physical well-being. Additionally, college support services
regularly offer school internships, on-campus job searches and job fairs, resume building,
financial aid, student grants, and opportunities that support students’ economic well-being.
Examples of on-campus services that support students’ social well-being include opportunities
for membership in various clubs and associations, such as student government assemblies, civic

36
engagement activities that include community organizations, and participating in the shared
governance process in and among various college committees and proposals. Finally, colleges
provide institutional support for students' emotional and psychological well-being by offering
counseling opportunities to address a wide range of concerns such as mental health, stress
management, and drug and alcohol problems.
The Commuter College Student
Although multiple definitions of commuter college students are available, “commuters
are usually defined as those students whose place of residence while attending college is not in a
campus residence hall or in a fraternity or sorority house” (Kuh et al., 2001, p. 2). Moreover,
commuter students overwhelmingly make up the majority of undergraduate students today,
representing 85.8% of the total undergraduate student population across all institutional types
(NCES, 2010a). Additionally, unlike a typical residential population, commuter students are not
a homogenous population but rather a unique student population with diverse characteristics. For
example, “They include full-time students of traditional age who live with their parents, part-
time students who live in rental housing near the campus, and adults with careers” (Jacoby, 2002,
p. 5). Additionally, commuters may reside near the campus or far away; they commute by private
vehicle, public transportation, walking, and bicycle. “They may represent a small percentage of
students at a private, residential liberal arts college or the entire population of a community
college or urban institution” (Jacoby, 2002, p. 5). Although characteristics for commuter students
include a diverse spectrum of measures, perhaps the most recognizable features are age,
enrollment status, living arrangement, and non-academic obligations (family commitments,
employment).

37
Commuter Student Characteristics
The current prototypical model of the college student is no longer a collection of standard
demographic features. In fact, non-traditional characteristics are much more prevalent than
historically traditional features. To illustrate this point, statistics from the NCES 2010 report
show that among all undergraduate students, almost half (43.2%) are age 24 or older.
Additionally, more than half (61.4%) are enrolled part-time, in comparison to attending full-time.
More than half (55.2%) live off campus, while about a third (31%) live with parents or relatives.
Furthermore, about half (50.2%) are financially independent, and more than a quarter (27.1%) of
all undergraduate students have financial dependents of their own (NCES, 2010b).
Age
Commuter students are typically older; almost half (43.2%) of all undergraduate students
are age 24 or older (NCES, 2010b). Academically, given the length of time away from school,
many older commuter students may struggle with transitioning back into the classroom and
adjusting to necessary academic skills such as reading and synthesizing textbook materials,
writing papers, note-taking, and preparing for exams. “Additionally, technology can be
intimidating to many of them, especially if it is not something used in their daily lives”
(MacDonald, 2018, p. 161). Moreover, older commuter students may struggle with socio-cultural
dynamics that accompany college attendance. For example, “Once classes have started, many
experience various anxieties related to the classroom like attending classes with younger
students, guilt over missing events in their family’s lives, selfishness, and low self-esteem”
(MacDonald, 2018, p. 161).

38
Enrollment Status
The majority of undergraduate students (61.4%) attend college part-time (NCES, 2010b).
In fact, “data shows that more than 80% of third-term students report being part-time for at least
some of their college experience” (Center for Community College Student Engagement, 2017, p.
2). For commuter students of all ages, being a college student is often one of many important and
demanding roles. Commuter students frequently have to contend with the demands of managing
multiple life roles in addition to their college commitments, often leaving part-time college
enrollment as the lone viable option for many. Jacoby (2004) stated,
Students’ lives, like those of their parents and caregivers, are absolutely more
complicated today (by jobs, debt, and transportation, for example) and the ranking of
college…or of studying, or classes, among their immediate priorities have clearly
changed… ‘Student’ is no longer every student’s primary identity…“Student” is only one
identity for people who are employees, wage workers, opinion leaders or followers,
artists, friends, children...parents, partners, or spouses. (pp. 13–14)
Unfortunately, research studies suggest that full-time students are far more likely to
experience superior student outcomes than part-time students for varied reasons. For example,
“Full-time students spend more time on campus, so they are more likely to be engaged with
campus activities and to use support services. They also are more likely to be on campus during
the day, when more services and more faculty are available” (Center for Community College
Student Engagement, 2017, p. 3). Additionally, “Full-time students have more opportunities to
build relationships with other students, collaborate on projects, or study in groups” (Center for
Community College Student Engagement, 2017, p. 3). Conversely, the Center for Community

39
College Student Engagement (2017) report included an excerpt by a student describing the
challenges many part-time students face:
I just became a part-time student for this semester. It’s the first semester I’m a part-time
student, and this is also the first semester I’m working full-time. It’s a whole new
experience. It’s really [hard] to want to go home after a full day of work and want to do
homework, especially when it’s things like calculus or programming that require a lot of
mental thought. (p. 6)
Living Arrangement
According to the NCES (2010) report, 85.9% of all undergraduate students either live off
campus or with family and relatives. As a result, commuter students often experience additional
barriers to learning in comparison to their traditional, residential counterparts. For example,
students that routinely commute to and from college campuses may experience additional fatigue
and stress that, over time, result in poorer student learning outcomes. Nelson et al. (2016)
posited, “The more time a student has to spend commuting, the less time she/he has for studying
or working with peer groups, etc. Therefore, the longer a student’s commute is, the lower his or
her GPA is likely to be” (p. 40). Consequently, an inherent advantage that residential students
hold in comparison to commuter students is not having to contend with daily commute times.
Additionally, due to the limited time spent on campus, commuter students may be hindered in
developing a sense of place and belonging with the college campus environment. In fact, studies
reveal that commuter students, “have been found to have slightly lower levels of interaction with
faculty members and were less likely to be involved in co-curricular activities such as clubs,
internships, and study abroad experiences” (Nelson et al., 2016, p. 39). Additionally, “When
commuter students compare themselves to their peers on campus, they may feel that they are at a

40
disadvantage in terms of skill development. They may also feel that they are not involved in the
“life” or the essential activities of the school” (Nelson et al., 2016, p. 39). This may discourage
commuter students and adversely impact their commitments to their educational goals.
Non-Academic Obligations
Commuter students often balance added responsibilities such as jobs and caring family
dependents in addition to school commitments. In fact,
An increasing trend reveals that over 46% of full-time students work 25 or more hours
per week simply to make ends meet. Commuter students are more likely to work, to work
more hours, and to work off campus than resident students. (Jacoby & Garland, 2004, p.
63)
Also, “many have responsibilities for managing households and for caring for children, siblings,
or older relatives” (Jacoby, 2002, p. 6). “Time management is a significant issue for adult
learners as they struggle to find a balance between maintaining their family and financial
obligations while still performing well in school” (MacDonald, 2018, p. 160). As a result,
commuter students’ access to learning outside of the classroom and developing network
opportunities such as group project participation and extra-curricular campus activities are often
limited by constraints of time and distance. Moreover, the role of family may also become an
influence of support or a hindrance to education. Additionally, due to demands of managing
multiple life roles, “commuter students are often linked to unfortunate stigmas pertaining to
possessing lower levels of commitment to their education, setting fewer educational goals, being
apathetic to campus operations/ issues, or engaging less academically” (Gianoutsos & Rosser,
2014, p. 2).

41
Although existing literature provides research discoveries that indicate common
characteristics specific to commuter students, virtually no research studies are available that
focus on specific factors that drive student persistence and degree completion outcomes among
commuter college students in Hawai’i. Additionally, further research is warranted to ascertain
the distinct barriers common among the commuter college student population in Hawai’i to
inform higher education professionals in developing appropriate programs, policies, and
practices.
To further illustrate the need for added research in Hawai’i, among the 10 colleges in the
state of Hawai’i, seven are commuter community colleges. Additionally, in 2018, over 50% of
college students in Hawaii are enrolled in a community college. As a result, this study’s aim was
to contribute to increasing commuter community college students’ persistence outcomes in
Hawai’i. Furthermore, the design of this study’s research articulates the importance of student
well-being among commuter community college students and their sense of belonging within the
campus environment and the impact both have on academic achievement.
Theoretical Framework
This study identifies two theories that may offer insights to improve student persistence
outcomes. The theories include models that underline the importance of student well-being and
the impact of academic and social integration within the college experience.
Prilleltensky ’s Conceptual Framework of Well-Being
Although existing literature predominately examines well-being at the level of the
individual, such as the physical and mental well-being, Prilleltensky (2005) offered a multi-
faceted approach to well-being that incorporates personal, relational, and collective dimensions.
Prilleltensky (2005) stated, “There are three primary sites of well-being (personal, relational, and

42
collective), each of which has specific signs or manifestations, sources or determinants, and
strategies” (p. 53). Additionally, “Well-being may be defined as a positive state of affairs in
which the personal, relational, and collective needs and aspirations of individuals and
communities are fulfilled” (Prilleltensky, 2005, p. 54). Prilleltensky’s unique paradigm on well-
being may be used as an all-encompassing model in facilitating the research and development of
research findings and recommendations that favorably impact all areas of student well-being.
Furthermore, by identifying opportunities and implementing recommendations that optimize
every aspect of student well-being developed through this study, students will be better
positioned to flourish in their academic pursuits.
With regard to personal well-being, “A few signs of personal well-being come to the
fore: self-determination and a sense of control, self-efficacy, physical and mental health,
optimism, meaning, and spirituality” (Prilleltensky, 2005, p. 55). Although useful, Prilleltensky’s
explanation that describes examples of personal well-being is simply a broad overview of
illustrations that relate to the personal domain of well-being. For the purposes of this study,
specific examples of identifiable variables that either enhance or hinder student well-being need
to be discovered, researched, and analyzed to develop recommendations that will improve
student outcomes.
“Signs of relational well-being include caring, respect for diversity, reciprocity,
nurturance and affection, support, collaboration, and democratic participation in decision-making
processes” (Prilleltensky, 2005, p. 55). Within the context of the commuter college student
experience, on-campus relationships with peers, faculty, and college personnel may impact
relational well-being. Additionally, relations among students that fall outside the realm of the
academic environment, such as with family members, friends, and coworkers may also

43
significantly impact their overall well-being. This study aimed to provide research findings that
point to specific instances that affect the relational well-being among commuter college students
in Hawai’i.
“Manifestations of collective well-being include a fair and equitable allocation of
bargaining powers, resources, and obligations in society, universal access to high-quality
educational, health, and recreational facilities, employment opportunities, safety, public
transportation, a clean environment, and peace” (Prilleltensky, 2005, p. 55). Additionally, “Signs
of collective well-being, such as universal access to healthcare and high-quality public education,
depend on policies that promote social justice” (Prilleltensky, 2005, p. 55). This study’s intent
was to discover examples that contribute to the collective well-being of students. Examples of
collective well-being may include; access to high-quality public education, social support
systems that encourage student well-being and academic achievement, and cultural or religious
groups that recognize and nurture commuter college students’ unique needs.
Figure 1 includes a broad range of examples that illustrate the interdependence among the
personal, relational, and collective domains within the sites, signs, sources, and strategies of
well-being.

44
Figure 1
Examples of Interdependence Among Personal, Relational, and Collective Domains in Sites,
Signs, Sources, and Strategies of Well-Being

Note. Reprinted from “Promoting well-being: Time for a paradigm shift in health and human
services” by I. Prilleltensky, 2005, Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 33, 53–60.
(https://doi.org/10.1080/14034950510033381)

Tinto ’s Model of Student Retention
Although studies on persistence and graduation rates in higher education exist, specific
factors directly linked to student persistence, graduation, or college dropout within community
colleges remain understudied. Literature on student persistence often fails to reveal the central
causes and motives for college retention among commuter community college students.
Nonetheless, in the literature on academic student retention, Tinto’s model offers a framework
that describes a wide range of causes for retention and dropout, such as academic failure,
voluntary withdrawal, permanent or temporary dropouts, or transfers to other institutions.
Moreover, “Failure to separate permanent dropout from temporary and/or transfer behaviors has

45
often led institutional and state planners to overestimate substantially the extent of dropout from
higher education” (Tinto, 1975, p. 90). Furthermore, “This is particularly noticeable in the lack
of attention that would lead to an understanding of the processes of interaction, which bring, over
time, differing individuals within the institution to varying levels of persistence and/or to varying
forms of dropout behavior” (Tinto, 1975, p. 90). Although not specifically directed to the
commuter community college student population, Tinto’s framework offers a model “that
explains the processes of interaction between the individual and the institution that lead differing
individuals to drop out from institutions of higher education” (Tinto, 1975, p. 90). By identifying
processes of interaction between students and colleges that may lead to drop out, researchers
may also develop recommendations based on interactions between students and colleges that
promote retention and persistence.
Tinto’s student integration model has its origins rooted from Durkheim’s theory of
suicide. In addition, Tinto’s model draws from the field of economics, namely, utilizing the cost-
benefit analysis that guides and influences individual decisions regarding investments among
competing educational activities.
Tinto (1975 explained, “According to Durkheim, suicide is more likely to occur when
individuals are insufficiently integrated into the fabric of society” (p. 91). Moreover, “the
likelihood of suicide in society increases when two types of integration are lacking—namely,
insufficient moral (value) integration and insufficient collective affiliation” (Tinto, 1975, p. 91).
From a comparative viewpoint, a presumption can be made that a social system embedded in a
college campus may closely resemble social systems situated in broad sectors of society. In a
similar vein, “One can reasonably expect that social conditions affecting dropout from the social
system of the college would resemble those resulting in suicide in the wider society, namely,

46
insufficient interactions with others in the college and insufficient congruency with the
prevailing value patterns of the college collectivity” (Tinto, 1975, pp. 91–92). Tinto (1975)
further added, “lack of integration into the social system of the college will lead to low
commitment to that social system and will increase the probability that individuals will decide to
leave college and pursue alternative activities” (p. 92). However, the distinction between the
academic and social domains of integration further suggests that a student may be integrated into
one domain without integrating into the other. For example, a student could be fully integrated
socially but not academically and have poor attendance and failing grades and be subject to
academic dismissal. On the other hand, a student could be fully integrated academically but may
decide to voluntarily drop out due to insufficient integration within the social facets of the
institution, such as having a lack of a sense of belonging and commitment to the institution.
With regard to the cost-benefit analysis model in Tinto’s student integration framework,
“individual decisions with regard to any form of activity can be analyzed in terms of the
perceived costs and benefits of that activity relative to those perceived in alternative activities”
(Tinto, 1975, p. 97). Moreover, “this perspective argues that a person will tend to withdraw from
college when he perceives that an alternative form of investment of time, energies, and resources
will yield greater benefits, relative to costs, over time than will staying in college” (Tinto, 1975,
pp. 97–98). In sum, “the person’s integration into the academic and social domains of the
institution, are themselves the result of the person’s perception of the benefits (e.g., academic
attainments) and the costs (e.g., financial, time) of his attendance at college” (Tinto, 1975, p. 98).
A student’s goal and institutional commitment may also affect college retention and
dropout decisions. For example, “Given prior commitment to the goal of college completion, the
lower an individual’s commitment to the institution, the more likely he is to drop out from that

47
institution” (Tinto, 1975, p. 96). “Whether or not he transfers to another institution or simply
leaves higher education altogether depends both upon the varying levels of the person’s goal and
institutional commitments” (Tinto, 1975, p. 96). Additionally, “Sufficiently high commitment to
the goal of college completion, even with minimal levels of academic and/or social integration
and therefore minimal institutional commitment, might not lead to dropout from the institution”
(Tinto, 1975, p. 96). “An individual might decide to “stick it out” until completion of the degree
program or transfer to another institution” (Tinto, 1975, p. 96).
Tinto’s student integration framework further theorizes that “dealing with the effects of
individual and institutional characteristics upon individual integration into the academic and
social systems of the college, it is important to distinguish between the varying types of dropout
behaviors, especially between academic dismissal and voluntary withdrawal” (Tinto, 1975, p.
116). Academic dismissal, “is most closely associated with grade performance, dropout in the
form of voluntary withdrawal is not” (Tinto, 1975, pp. 116–117). “Such withdrawal, instead,
appears to relate to the lack of congruency between the individual and both the intellectual
climate of the institution and the social system composed of his peers” (Tinto, 1975, p. 117).
Figure 2 illustrates that the process of persistence or dropout from college can be viewed
as “a longitudinal process of interactions between the individual and the academic and social
systems of the college during which a person’s experiences in those systems continually modify
his goal and institutional commitments in ways which lead to persistence and/or to varying forms
of dropout” (Tinto, 1975, p. 94). Furthermore, as characterized in Figure 2, being sufficiently
integrated within the academic and social systems on the campus environment (i.e., their sense of
belonging) holds a pivotal role in determining continued student persistence or departure among
commuter community college students.

48
Figure 2
Conceptual Schema for Persistence or Dropout from College

Note. Reprinted from “Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent
research,” by V. Tinto, 1975, Review of Educational Research, 45, 89–125.
(https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543045001089)

Conclusion
Recent education statistics indicate that nationwide student persistence and graduation
rates at community colleges are considerably lower in comparison to four-year universities. In
addition, previous literature on student persistence was predominantly focused on the traditional,
residential college student population. Moreover, research revealed major demographical shifts
among the undergraduate student population in that most students hold at least one non-
traditional characteristic. In fact, MacDonald (2018) reported, “non-traditional students account
for more than 71% of students enrolled in all of higher education” (p. 160). Examples of non-

49
traditional markers include age, enrollment status, living arrangements, and non-academic
obligations such as family and career demands. Moreover, the majority of the undergraduate
student population are commuter students: “85.8% of college students either live off-campus or
with family and relatives” (NCES, 2010a). Unfortunately, the preponderance of current scholarly
literature neglects the recognition of the aforementioned student characteristics in relation to
student retention research.
Commuter community college students remain an understudied student population,
notably within the analysis of student persistence and within the geographical regions of
Hawai’i. Nevertheless, the review of literature offers a broad overview detailing the
characteristics and challenges facing commuter students attending community colleges; and may
be applicable to commuter community college students residing in Hawai’i. For instance,
commuter students are often living on their own or in off-campus housing, contending with an
exceptionally high cost of living in localities such as Hawai’i; frequently working more than 20
hours per week; simultaneously juggling numerous life roles; and as a consequence, are limited
with the amount of time spent on campus outside of class hours. As a result, the analysis of the
literature signifies how student well-being and their level of social and academic integration
within the college environment may impact student persistence among commuter community
college students in Hawai’i.
This study’s aim was to add to the literature on how the relational dynamics of student
well-being and sense of belonging on campus impact student persistence among commuter
community college students in Hawai’i. To illustrate this point, this study posited that students’
level of well-being may, in part, influence their academic integration (i.e., reading course
materials, completing assignments, preparing for exams) and social integration (i.e., class

50
attendance, class participation, interaction with peers, faculty, and on-campus activities), which
directly impacts academic success. Additionally, this study further posited that well-being may
also affect commuter community college students’ goal commitment and institutional
commitment.
Chapter Three presents the rationale for choosing a qualitative approach to examine
overall student well-being and sense of belonging on campus.

51
Chapter Three: Methodology
The previous chapters provided an overview of a troubling trend confronting community
college students in the United States. As evidenced in recent education statistics, community
college persistence and graduation rates are considerably lower than at 4-year universities and
significantly lower amongst the community colleges in Hawai’i. Additionally, by synthesizing
and critically evaluating the literature on student retention, the community college student
population continues to be understudied and seldom recognized for its unique challenges,
characteristics, and barriers to graduation, particularly in Hawai’i. Therefore, the fundamental
characteristic that all community college students in Hawai’i share is the experience of being
commuter students who often contend with numerous hurdles to education. Examples are
juggling multiple life responsibilities, regularly working more than 20 hours per week, coping
with the high cost of living in Hawai’i, and not being able to spend additional time on campus
beyond class hours. As a result, a theoretical framework emerged-linking student well-being and
experiencing a sense of belonging on campus as critical factors that impact student persistence
among commuter community college students in Hawai’i.
Rooted in the understanding of said characteristics and circumstances placed on
commuter community college students in Hawai’i, this chapter will provide an overview of the
research methodology and methods used to conduct research and analyze the data. Individual,
semi-structured interviews were the primary source of data. Through participant narratives and
reflections of their experiences as commuter students enrolled at a community college in
Hawai’i, this study intended to examine the impact of well-being and experiencing a sense of
belonging on student persistence outcomes. Two research questions guided this study:

52
1. How do commuter community college students think about their well-being relative to
their academic responsibilities, personal life, and work commitments?
2. How do commuter community college students think about their sense of belonging
relative to the campus environment?
Qualitative Methods
A qualitative approach to exploring commuter community college students’ lived
experiences in Hawai’i is aptly suited for this study due to the lack of data and research on this
topic. Qualitative research is “an umbrella term covering an array of interpretive techniques
which seek to describe, decode, translate, and otherwise come to terms with the meaning, not the
frequency, of certain more or less naturally occurring phenomena in the social world” (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016, p. 14). Moreover, “Qualitative researchers are interested in understanding how
people interpret their experiences, how they construct their worlds, and what meaning they
attribute to their experiences” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 5). Additionally, “Qualitative
methods demonstrate a different approach to scholarly inquiry than methods of quantitative
research. Although the processes are similar,“qualitative methods rely on text and image data,
have unique steps in data analysis, and draw on diverse designs” (Creswell, 2014, p. 232).
Furthermore, “another important characteristic of qualitative research is that the process is
inductive; that is, researchers gather data to build concepts, hypotheses, or theories rather than
deductively testing hypotheses” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 17). Since little is known about
commuter community college students’ lived experiences in Hawai’i, a qualitative approach
allowed for developing descriptions and themes from the data rather than starting from theories
and testing hypotheses.

53
To collect rich, detailed data about participants’ lived experiences, I conducted
individual, semi-structured interviews. With semi-structured interviews, “the largest part of the
interview is guided by list of questions or issues to be explored and specific data is required from
all respondents” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 109). However, the researcher may also use
probing questions to follow up on interview questions which, “allows the researcher to respond
to the situation at hand, to the emerging worldview of the respondent, and to new ideas on the
topic” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 109). Additionally, an interview protocol was utilized for
asking questions and recording answers during each interview. Within this study, the
interviewees’ voices are acknowledged and contribute to understanding how student well-being
and experiencing a sense of belonging on campus impact student persistence outcomes.
Site, Population, and Sample
Laulima Community College (LCC, a pseudonym) was founded over 50 years ago and
has a high degree of diversity among its faculty and students. The school is a commuter
community college located on the island of O’ahu, Hawai’i, and is accredited by the Western
Association of Schools and Colleges. It offers 79 associate degrees and certificates ranging from
liberal arts to career and technical education programs and provides educational opportunities for
transfer to 4-year universities. Approximately 7,000 students are regularly enrolled every
semester, and educational programs are offered on campus, off campus in community sites, and
through online distance learning courses. The campus offers various scholarships and grants
along with financial aid to help students cover the costs of education.
At LCC, the student body is comprised of a diverse spectrum of ethnic backgrounds as
well as an average of 70 international students from 26 countries. As of 2016, the racial/ethnic
breakdown of LCC students was 26.5% Native Hawaiian/Part Hawaiian, 22.5% Filipino, 11%

54
Pacific Islanders, 9.0% All Other Asian, 10.5% Caucasian, 15.5% Mixed Ethnicity, 2%
Hispanic, 2.5% African American, and .5% All Other. Additionally, LCC is the third-largest
campus in the UH system and has steadily grown into the community college that serves the
largest number of Native Hawaiian undergraduate students and the largest number of military &
veteran students throughout the state of Hawai’i.
Sampling Method
The population for this study consisted of commuter community college students enrolled
in LCC. Purposeful sampling was utilized to gain rich, descriptive data from the unique student
population. The rationale for employing purposeful sampling “is based on the assumption that
the investigator wants to discover, understand, and gain nuanced insight and therefore must
select a sample from which the most can be learned” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 96). By
implementing this sampling strategy, particular settings, persons, or activities were selected
deliberately to provide information that was particularly relevant to this study’s research
questions and goals (Maxwell, 2013, p. 96).
Participant Selection
Participants were selected for participation by either verbal requests from me or through
email requests through the University of Hawai’i email system. The emails were sent to students
at LCC with verbiage containing required information relating to participant selection criteria.
Participants were screened prior to interviews for the following minimum criteria: self-
identification as a commuter college student attending LCC and working towards degree
completion or transfer to a four-year university, self-identification as having at least one non-
traditional student characteristic, having enrolled at LCC for at least one academic year, enrolled

55
at LCC at the time of the interview, and intending to register for college classes the following
semester.
Instrumentation
Participant interviews were conducted by utilizing a standardized open-ended interview
format directed by an interview protocol comprised of uniformed questions with an option of
follow-up questions used at the interviewer's discretion. An interview protocol (guide) “is
prepared to ensure that the same basic lines of inquiry are pursued with each person interviewed”
and “provides topics or subject areas within which the interviewer is free to explore, probe, and
ask questions that will elucidate and illuminate that particular subject” (Patton, 2002, p. 343).
Further, “the advantage of an interview guide is that it makes sure that the interviewer has
carefully decided how best to use the limited time available in an interview situation” (Patton,
2002, p. 343). The interview guide was customized to address the research questions of this
study.
Data Collection
Eight participants were selected for the interviews. Criteria for participation in this study
included factors such as Hawai’i residency, college enrollment status, college major, expected
degree completion, living situation, hours worked per week, and semesters attended at LCC. The
interviews were scheduled for an hour to allow for in-depth discussions. After each interview,
participants received a $20 Target e-gift card as a token of appreciation. With consent from the
interviewees, all interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed by a third-party service. In
addition to audio recordings, notes were taken during the interviews. All participants were
offered an opportunity to create pseudonyms to protect their identities, and only pseudonyms
were referenced throughout the interviews.

56
Data Analysis
The process of data analysis involved a multi-step approach that includes “working with
the data, organizing them, breaking them into manageable units, coding them, synthesizing them,
and searching for patterns” (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007, p. 159). The following section outlines the
details of the data analysis process that utilized the application of the constant-comparative
method. Issues with the validity and reliability of the data analysis when conducting qualitative
research are also addressed.
Data collected from the interviews were analyzed through coding and the constant-
comparative method as described by Corbin and Strauss (2008). According to Creswell (2014),
coding is the process that involves “taking text data or pictures gathered during data collection,
segmenting sentences (or paragraphs) into categories, and labeling those categories with a term,
often a term based in the actual language of the participant (called an in vivo term)” (p. 247). I
was intentional in making choices during the coding process to develop appropriate categories
that tied together multiple units of data gathered from the interviews.
Constant comparisons provide an opportunity to compare “each incident in the data with
other incidents for similarities and differences. Incidents found to be conceptually similar are
grouped together under a higher-level descriptive concept” (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p. 73). The
process of comparison is essential to data analysis because it enables the researcher “to
differentiate one category/theme from another and to identify properties and dimensions specific
to that category/theme” (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p. 73). This analysis of the interview data was
essential to combine comparable categories into emergent overarching themes that contributed to
this study’s findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 181).

57
Validity
With qualitative research, it is imperative to conduct the data analysis with a
methodology that produces valid and reliable knowledge in an ethical manner (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016, p. 191). Validity is based on determining whether the findings are accurate from
the researcher’s standpoint, the participant, or the readers of an account (Creswell, 2014, p. 251).
It was essential that this study address internal validity, which relates to how close the research
findings characterized the real-life experiences of the interview participants. (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016, p. 242). Additionally, this study also assessed external validity, or the extent to which the
research findings could be applied to other situations (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 192). This
study actively incorporated multiple strategies to ensure that the merit of the research findings
was both valid and reliable.
This study gathered data from multiple interviews and utilized an inductive process to
build a coherent justification for emergent themes. By gathering different sources of information
from numerous participants, themes were established by the convergence of perspectives from
the participants (Creswell, 2014, p. 234). The process of gathering multiple data sources and
coding the interview responses into categories that formed the emergent themes added to the
validity of this study.
Member checking was also utilized as a method of strengthening the validity of the
research findings. Member checking may be used to determine the accuracy of the qualitative
findings by taking the major findings or themes to the participants to determine if the
descriptions were accurate (Creswell, 2014, p. 251). At the conclusion of each interview, I
attempted to summarize the information gathered from the participant to ensure that the content
and context were an accurate and fair representation of the responses given. Additionally,

58
follow-up meetings with certain participants were an option if further clarification was needed
while reviewing the themes during the analysis of the interview data.
To further add to the validity of the study, I incorporated rich, thick descriptions to
convey the findings. (Creswell, 2014, p. 251). During each interview, I used reflective field notes
with detailed descriptions to provide an accurate depiction of the real-life experiences of the
participants. Additionally, I utilized self-reflection and personal journal notes to minimize
potential researcher bias during the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 258).
Role of the Researcher
Maxwell (2013) stated, “qualitative researchers typically deal with validity threats as
particular events or processes that could lead to invalid conclusions” (p. 124). Two primary
considerations should be conveyed with regard to my position for this study in relation to
qualitative studies: researcher bias and the effect of the researcher on the individuals studied,
often called reactivity (Maxwell, 2013, p. 124).
First, as I was the primary instrument for data collection and analysis (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016, p. 16), I remained vigilant in recognizing any occurrences of personal bias that
may distort the interpretation of the data collected. It is my position that the qualitative data
analysis of this study was primarily inductive and comparative (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p.
201), and rather than deductively testing hypotheses, the construction of categories and themes
from the findings are emergent (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, pp. 16, 120).
The second consideration is my position at LCC. I am currently an instructor at LCC and
have taught at LCC for several years. There is a high degree of probability that prior interactions
between student participants and me have occurred. The institutional relationship between the
student participants and me may create an unintentional barrier for the participants to reveal

59
personal stories and narratives, as I may inadvertently hold influence within the dynamics of the
relationship. And at the same time, having established trust and rapport with student participants,
I could leverage an existing, cordial relationship with them in facilitating the process of
gathering personalized and nuanced data.
Participant Biographies
Participant demographic information is presented at the beginning of Chapter Four,
including each participant’s self-identified student characteristics, degree completion goals, and
the persistence criterion.
Conclusion
This chapter outlined the methodological approach for this study, presented the research
questions, and proposed the rationale for the sample selection, instrumentation, data collection,
and data analysis for this study while acknowledging the application of several validity
procedures that reinforce the integrity, authenticity, and reliability of the information collected,
including the role of the researcher. Chapter Four will discuss the results of the data collection,
including the analysis of the information. Chapter Four introduces the study participants, outlines
the demographic data, and chronicles the participants’ experiences and narratives as commuter
students navigating the college experience at LCC.

60

Chapter Four: Findings
This qualitative study sought to explore how well-being and experiencing a sense of
belonging on campus impact persistence among commuter community college students in
Hawai’i. Eight commuter community college students were selected to participate in this study.
A qualitative research method was utilized to conduct research at LCC. This chapter presents
demographic information on the eight participants of the study and provides a detailed account of
how the eight participants thought about their well-being and experiencing a sense of belonging
on campus in relation to their academic journeys. Additionally, this chapter outlines the findings
of the study by defining the four themes that emerged from the interview data: (a) the impact of
college, personal life, and work on well-being (b) well-being support systems, (c) the importance
of sense of belonging on campus, (d) the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The four themes
were developed through the examination of the data gathered from the individual, semi-
structured interviews. In this chapter, all the findings and emergent themes presented served to
answer the research questions of this study. Two research questions guided this study:
1. How do commuter community college students think about their well-being relative to
their academic responsibilities, personal life, and work commitments?
2. How do commuter community college students think about their sense of belonging
relative to the campus environment?
Participant Demographics
Table 1 presents the participants’ demographic information, including each participant’s
self-identified student characteristics, degree completion goals, and the persistence criterion.

61
Table 1
Relevant Demographic Information of Participants
Pseudonym Sex
Works equal
to or more
than 20
hours per
week or
financially
independent

Claims
dependents
Responsible
for care of
children,
siblings, or
older
relatives
Working
towards
degree
completion
Attended
LCC for
the past
academic
year,
currently
enrolled at
LCC, and
plans to
enroll at
LCC in the
following
semester
Sydney Male Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Kahealani Female Yes No Yes
Yes Yes
Ajalani Female Yes No No
Yes Yes
Sadie Female Yes No No
Yes Yes
Jayden Male Yes No No
Yes Yes
Bryson Male Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Kawena Female Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Ashley Female Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes

Emergent Themes
Four themes emerged in this study: (a) the impact of college, personal life, and work on
well-being, (b) well-being support systems, (c) the importance of sense of belonging on campus,
and (d) the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Theme 1: The Impact of College, Personal Life, and Work on Well-Being
All eight student participants specifically discussed how college, their personal lives, and
work impacted their well-being while attending LCC. Acknowledging the diversity of their

62
characteristics, participants provided a unique perspective on their experiences that resulted in
several overarching themes. For example, 62.5% (5/8) of the participants mentioned that the
rigors of college posed one of the biggest challenges to their well-being. Comparably, 87.5%
(7/8) stated that their personal lives impacted their well-being significantly while attending
college. Moreover, 62.5% (5/8) cited work as a major challenge to their well-being while
attending college. The next section describes how college, their personal lives, and work
impacted the participants’ well-being.
College
Of the eight interviewees, five conveyed that their academic responsibilities posed
significant challenges to their well-being. Intriguingly, each had different explanations as to why
this was the case. To illustrate this point, Bryson, a military veteran returning to school, initially
noted that he preferred traditional, face-to-face college courses while attending college.
However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Bryson’s only options were fully online courses for
the 2020 spring, summer, and fall semesters. Consequently, he mentioned that he thought taking
fully online courses negatively impacted his well-being because he was required to competently
navigate fully online courses without the option of being able to commute to campus and
participate in face-to-face courses. For example, Bryson was required to participate in scheduled
Zoom (a video-conferencing software) meetings as part of his online courses, an element that
raised mixed feelings for Bryson. Bryson said,
For instance, with Zoom, we have to adapt to it now versus the culture we’re growing up
in. You know, we can’t raise our hand. We’re not in a classroom, so the availability of
that, the everyday communication [isn’t there].

63
Bryson continued, “Online courses are very challenging, just time consuming. I’m finding it
difficult to kind of grasp. You’ve got everyone saying that online is easy. Well, it all depends,
you know. It’s a give and take.” Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Bryson was able to attend
traditional, face-to-face courses. The return of traditional face-to-face college courses at LCC,
and throughout the entire collegiate system in Hawai’i, remains undetermined as of the writing
of this study.
Jayden, also a military veteran, conveyed a different perspective of how the rigors of
college impacted his well-being. Jayden expressed that time management was the biggest
challenge in relation to his personal well-being. Jayden mentioned that “it has been 15 years
since I graduated high school” and “was my first time in college ever.” Jayden continued, “I was
just getting back into that learning mindset, and I didn’t have a very stable set schedule. It was
hard to get used to it.” Jayden added,
I didn’t realize how much time 12 credits took. I was physically just kind of worn out,
spending eight hours a day on my schoolwork and then also work eight hours a day in
order to keep my bills paid. Then, I found that the best thing that worked for me [was]
using a simple app on my phone. That kind of helped me remember when I got to get to
class, scheduling between my classes and my work schedule.
Sydney voiced that the weekly reading loads of his classes and rigor of summer school
impacted his well-being most while attending college. For instance, when asked, with regard to
academic responsibilities, personal life, and work commitments, which area impacted his overall
well-being the most while attending college, Sydney was quick to point out that attending
college presented the biggest impact on his well-being. Sydney commented, “it would be the
workload and the scheduling of the classes. There are some classes that are heavy reading, where

64
you look and check, and this week the chapter has 60 pages, and you’re like, I have to get that
done sometime this week.” Sydney further added, “the summer session’s been extra grueling. It’s
crammed into a shorter period of time. Yeah, it’s more grueling than the regular semester.”
Personal Life
Seven out of eight student participants mentioned that their personal lives impacted their
well-being while attending college. Five participants mentioned that caring for their family
members was the primary challenge or stress while attending college. In fact, four of the
participants were raising their young children, and one participant was caring for her
grandparents. The remaining two participants cited personal finances as the most challenging or
stressful while attending college. One participant, Ajalani, had a compelling story to share.
Ajalani initially spoke to the fact that not having a car and being a commuter student was one of
the most challenging or stressful aspects of college. Ajalani said, “I would have to take the bus
and the bus doesn’t run up to the campus and to take two backpacks and walk up and down the
hill um, transportation was the biggest challenge for me.” Ajalani further added,
I also have evening classes. My classes ended around 7:30pm, and it was really dark at
that time, and it takes a long time on the bus from where I live in Waianae. It takes about
an hour and a half to two hours (one way) depending on traffic. I would have to leave a
lot earlier rather than spending time on homework to get to class on time.
Ajalani also mentioned that she takes full advantage of her resources on campus, such as
the HINET program at LCC. The HINET program was created in partnership with the State of
Hawai’i Department of Human Services to deliver assistance and support for college students.
Ajalani mentioned that the HINET program helped her with getting food stamps and also
assisted in helping her get her bus pass reimbursed every month. Ajalani said, “That really, really

65
helped. Especially because my dad was in Korea and he was the sole breadwinner of the house,
so that really helped me to put food on the table for myself and travel back and forth to and from
school.”
Work
Five participants cited that work was the major contributing factor that impacted their
well-being while attending college. Two participants, Kahealani and Jayden, stated that they
have labor-intensive jobs, and both work full-time. Consequently, after a full day’s work, they
both expressed how difficult it was to engage and complete school assignments on the same day.
For instance, when asked what aspect of college Kahealani found most challenging or stressful,
Kahealani mentioned work. Kahealani cited, “I’m just so tired after work because my work is
really labor-intensive. I do a lot of lifting, carrying, and moving. So, when I get home, I’m pretty
tired and exhausted.” Kahealani continued, “I try and remind myself that I’m doing this [college]
for a reason. You gotta get your schoolwork done, and then you can relax.”
In a somewhat different vein, Kawena felt that her well-being was compromised due to
the constant pressure she felt to perform well in school and pressure stemming from her
employer. Kawena was working as a bookkeeper for a construction company and got reimbursed
for her college tuition by showing her report card to her boss at the end of every semester.
Kawena further added that her company’s goal was for her to eventually graduate with an
accounting degree and move up within the company. Kawena mentioned, “They are trying to
invest in the future with me, to be there for the long-term.” However, Kawena stated that the
importance of earning high marks in college places additional challenges on her. Kawena said,

66
There’s an extra challenge for me going to school. If I’m not getting good grades, then
what is the point of them having me as an employee? I guess they are looking at me in
the bigger picture in their whole dynamic of their future.
Two participants were directly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic in relation to their
work and financial situations while attending college. Consequently, both participants felt that
their well-being was compromised as a direct result of the global pandemic. To illustrate this
point, Sadie said that due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the damaging financial impact it
caused on her and her family, Sadie felt she needed to work more and mentioned that work
quickly became a top priority in her life. Subsequently, Sadie is now working two jobs while
attending college and revealed how her current work situation impacted her well-being while
pursuing her academic goals. Sadie mentioned, “I just recently started two jobs. I feel I need to
be working more just because of my family situation (due to COVID-19). I feel like I need to
make more money but also go to school.”
Ashley also cited her workplace and the adverse effects of the COVID-19 pandemic as
the primary offending agent to her well-being while attending college. Ashley works between 20
and 27 hours per week at a Starbucks in an often crowded mall. Ashley stated, “It gets very, very
busy even though we should be social distancing, and that takes a toll on my well-being because
I get scared. And the numbers are rising. I really can’t wait to have everything back to normal.”
Ashley continued, “Especially on the weekends, people in the mall seem less considerate. They
are just there to socialize even though we shouldn’t be. You know, with their mask off and then
handing you money. It’s like, c’mon now.”

67
Theme 2: Well-Being Support Systems
All eight participants engaged in some form or practice of well-being while attending
college. In all cases, an improvement in well-being occurred from either a change in
environmental factors, the integration of self-care practices, or the aid of external support. To
illustrate an example, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing mandate that all courses
at LCC abruptly move to a fully online environment during the 2020 spring, summer, and fall
semesters, three participants commented that this newly enacted fully online academic
environment actually enhanced their well-being as commuter community college students. As
cited in the literature review in Chapter Two, commuter community college students often
contend with congested traffic conditions characterized by slower driving speeds, longer trip
times, and hazardous road conditions such as car accidents. However, as a result of taking fully
online courses due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Sydney eliminated his daily 90-minute commute
to and from school. Sydney admitted, “What has been easier, I hate to say it, is that everything
has been online recently. I can make my own schedule at my convenience and shoehorn anything
into my schedule.” Additionally, Ashley mentioned that taking online courses instead of having
to commute to and from the college has enabled her to homeschool her three children
indefinitely during the pandemic. Sadie commented that not having to travel to campus provided
her the flexibility to manage her time much better, so she can work her two jobs, which was a
priority for her.
Three other participants exercised more conventional practices to support their well-being
while attending college. For instance, both Ashley and Jayden met with their therapists weekly to
support their well-being. In addition to therapy, Jayden also commuted to LCC to take yoga
classes to further boost his well-being while attending to his academic responsibilities, work

68
commitments, and personal life. In a similar manner, Bryson began his mornings with meditation
and positive affirmations. Bryson added, “I start my day and wake up and have 10 minutes to
myself just to kinda reassure myself that everything is going to be alright no matter what I have
to do today.” Bryson also exercises regularly to further bolster his well-being while attending
college full-time.
Intriguingly, Ajalani mentioned that making good use of her external support systems at
LCC was an essential aspect of her well-being while attending college. Particularly, Ajalani is
very appreciative of her campus community, the Native Hawaiian Center at LCC. Ajalani said,
“I would go there to study, borrow a laptop, and they usually had Cup O’ Noodles too. So, I
could go there to have a snack either before or after class, with time to study for my next class.”
Theme 3: The Importance of Sense of Belonging On Campus
When asked about how the participants thought about experiencing a sense of belonging
on campus, the majority of the participants’ responded with positive and enriching experiences
and communicated the value of utilizing a broad range of campus services that supported their
academic successes. For instance, two participants were quite active and involved with utilizing
the campus itself, along with participating in various on-campus activities and the accompanying
campus services. Additionally, three participants also utilized the campus grounds outside of
classroom hours, intermittently used various campus services, and occasionally partook in on-
campus activities. The remaining two participants, primarily due to time constraints placed on
their schedules such as caring for children and work commitments, said they rarely utilized the
campus outside of classroom hours, sparsely used any of the campus services, and did not attend
any on-campus activities.

69
In particular, Ajalani, genuinely immersed herself within the entire academic
environment at LCC while attending college. Ajalani credited the Native Hawaiian Center as the
primary focal point of her college community experience. Ajalani added, “through the
connections and relationships I’ve made there, it makes it a lot easier to make new ones. It made
me feel a lot more confident in myself being able to talk to other and new people.” Ajalani
further commented, “I also work there. Through the help of the program coordinator, I just got a
job through a scholarship as a peer mentor.” In a similar manner, Sadie communicated her desire
to become more involved within the campus environment at LCC outside of classroom hours.
Sadie added, “I would like to get more involved in school, probably like associations that are
associated with the degree I’m getting, like business clubs. It could help me learn more. I could
get more experiences.” Sadie further added, “I liked how when I went to school, there was
always different clubs, different activities going on in front of the library. I was like, this is cool,
I like how everyone is involved.” Another participant, Sydney, mentioned how he frequently
used the outdoor tables on campus as a quiet place to study in between classes. Likewise, Jayden
and Bryson also commented that they would frequently visit the math and writing labs, located in
the library, for academic support for their classes.
The remaining two participants said they do not use the campus grounds outside of
classroom hours and rarely utilized any of the campus services. The fundamental rationale was
primarily due to time constraints placed on their schedules, such as working full-time and caring
for spouses and children. For instance, when asked if Kawena uses the campus or the campus
services outside of classroom hours, Kawena responded,

70
To be honest, I’m going to class and then go home. I’ve got a lot of stuff on my plate,
time is limited. I’ve got to get my kids from school, I work all day, and go to school at
night.
Ashley shared similar sentiments as Kawena. Ashley commented,
I personally do not use any areas of the campus because if I’m not at school, I’m at home
taking care of my kids or having to go to work. I’ve used the library a couple of times,
but everything else is pretty much used less because of my situation being a full-time
mom, part-time worker, and wife.
It is worth noting that since March 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the campus
grounds at LCC have been closed to the public, all on-campus activities have been cancelled, and
campus services have been limited and regulated to predominantly online services.
Theme 4: The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic
The interviews were conducted in August 2020. To describe a general timeline of the
onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, in the first quarter of 2020, the widespread outbreak of
COVID-19 took on global proportions. In fact, on March 11, 2020, “Deeply concerned both by
the alarming levels of spread and severity, and by the alarming levels of inaction, WHO made
the assessment that COVID-19 can be characterized as a pandemic” (WHO, 2020, para. 21).
Alarmingly, by March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic reached large-scale magnitudes within the
United States, affecting virtually every sector of society.
In March 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Hawaii Governor Ige ordered a
statewide lockdown to promote “social distancing” with the hopes of controlling the spread of
the deadly virus in Hawai’i. As a result, all face-to-face college courses in Hawai’i were abruptly
directed towards a completely online modality for the remainder of the spring semester in 2020.

71
Moreover, all college courses in Hawai’i remained in a completely online setting for the summer
and fall semesters in 2020 and will continue indefinitely. In fact, University of Hawaiʻi President
David Lassner stated in a recent message to the 10 campuses across the University of Hawai’i
system, “Given current conditions and what we expect in the months to come, it is clear that we
must plan for primarily online instruction across our 10 campuses in the spring (2021), as it has
been this fall (2020)” (The University of Hawaii at Hilo, 2020).
Consequently, all eight of the student participants’ experiences, whether from an
academic, personal, or professional perspective, were significantly impacted by the COVID-19
pandemic. Therefore, the emergent themes, both implicitly and openly, conveyed the impact of
the COVID-19 pandemic on the eight student participants’ lived experiences and the findings of
this study. To illustrate this point, all eight participants referenced the impact of the COVID-19
pandemic at some juncture when answering questions during the interviews. For instance,
Kawena voiced that she did not mind commuting to the college campus and she actually prefers
taking face-to-face college courses. Unfortunately, due to COVID-19 and the subsequent shift to
fully online courses, Kawena struggled with her fully online course, which was facilitated by an
unresponsive teacher. Moreover, Kawena’s negative experience with her unresponsive teacher
may have adversely impacted her sense of belonging at LCC. For instance, when asked about
interactions with her teachers and what aspect of those relationships she found the most
important, she was quick to point out that she felt she did not receive the personalized, one-on-
one support she needed in her online precalculus course. Kawena mentioned, “It’s COVID time,
but there were no Zoom meet-ups. You would think that you would, especially like a precalculus
class.” Kawena further added,

72
The teacher I had was awful. Worst teacher ever. She never helped me once. I never got
one piece of help from the teacher the whole time. I did reach out maybe twice, but she
always referred me to the syllabus, or to look on a YouTube video, go to this website and
look at tutorials. She never tutored me once. I actually had to go to my husband. He
helped me. Also, one of my friends, who is in a doctorate right now in math. She helped
me with one-on-one Zoom tutoring classes.
Kawena further added, “I have another virtual class this semester [2020 fall semester], and I am
scared because of the last one I had. It wasn’t a good experience. I’m hoping that this one will be
better.”
In a different vein, Sydney commented, “You know, having to, in the middle of the
semester having to go full online, almost flawlessly they (LCC) were able to do it, logistically
that’s pretty good.” Correspondingly, when asked what aspect of college Sadie found most
stressful or challenging in relation to her personal life, Sadie mentioned she felt she needed to
concentrate on working rather than school due to “our situation we are right now.” When asked
to clarify “our situation right now,” she explained, “Yes, the COVID situation.” Finally, Bryson
expressed his sentiments of how the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic thwarted his identity as
a commuter community college student and diminished his sense of place at LCC. Bryson
commented,
I’m stuck in a room, and [it’s] mentally challenging. ’Cause I noticed, whenever I was
going [to school], it’s almost like a purpose. I go to school, I take that drive to school.
And then be able to interact with other students there. We have Zoom, but it’s not the
same.

73
Summary of Findings
Based on the results from the data collection, the following findings and themes emerged
in connection to the two research questions. Table 2 summarizes the research questions and the
associated findings and themes.

Table 1
Research Questions, Findings, and Themes Matrix
Research questions Findings Themes
How do commuter community college
students think about their well-being
relative to their academic
responsibilities, personal life, and
work commitments?

Time management,
difficulty with fully
online classes
Financial hardships, caring
for family members
The practice of well-being
through self-care, external
support and connection to
community
Positive and negative
experiences with taking
completely online courses

The impact of college,
personal life, and
work on well-being
Well-being support
systems
The impact of the
covid-19 pandemic

How do commuter community college
students think about their sense of
belonging relative to the campus
environment?
Perspectives on the
importance of campus
immersion and
participation
Connection to the campus
community
Positive and negative
experiences with taking
completely online courses

The importance of
sense of belonging
on campus

The impact of the
COVID-19
pandemic

74
Research Question 1
The first research question asked, “How do commuter community college students think
about their well-being relative to their academic responsibilities, personal life, and work
commitments?” An examination of the data collected revealed that the participants faced
numerous challenges that impacted their well-being while simultaneously focusing on their
academic responsibilities, personal lives, and work commitments. In particular, contingent on the
unique circumstances of each participant, varied levels of well-being such as mental, physical,
relational, community, and financial well-being were disclosed. In all cases, the participants
engaged in some form or practice that enhanced their well-being while attending college, such as
self-care activities, external support systems, or having supportive family units.
The Impact of College, Personal Life, and Work on Well-Being
While answering questions throughout the interview discussions, all participants
recounted particular events that impacted their well-being while contending with the rigors of
college, their personal lives, and work commitments.
College
Five participants said that their academic responsibilities posed significant challenges to
their well-being. For instance, three participants commented that the summer college session was
particularly grueling due to its condensed format (a traditional 16-week course compressed into 8
weeks) coupled with only having a fully online class option. Bryson said, “For, like, summer
classes, oh man, I was bombarded. Just, like, everything was crunched.” Sydney shared a similar
sentiment: “The summer semester’s been extra grueling. It’s crammed into a shorter period of
time.” In addition to the workload associated with college coursework, certain participants
indicated that commuting to and from college posed significant challenges to their well-being.

75
For example, Ashley commented that the scheduling of class times every semester was the most
challenging aspect of college due to being the mother of three children and working between 20
and 27 hours per week.
Personal Lives
All eight participants were asked, in terms of their well-being, what aspect of college they
found most challenging or stressful in relation to their personal lives. Five participants said that
caring for family members posed the biggest challenge to their well-being while attending
college. For instance, Kahealani mentioned that in addition to attending college and working
full-time, caring for her grandparents presented the biggest challenge to her well-being.
Kahealani was living with and taking care of her grandparents, who were physically unable to
function independently and needed a full-time caregiver. To care for her grandparents, Kahealani
had to uproot her life in Alaska and move back to Hawai’i. Kahealani added, “I used to live in
Alaska and then moved back here because they needed help. Before I even start work, I ask them
if they need something done.” Kahealani continued, “I’ve done this for about a year, and now
they’re doing better, then I decided I should go back to school.” In addition, Ashley cited that
aside from her weekly work and school commitments, she suddenly had to homeschool her three
kids indefinitely since schools were closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In a somewhat
different vein, Sadie stated that her parents’ pressuring her to perform well in college posed the
toughest challenge for her well-being while attending college. Sadie explained,
I feel more pressure on me because I’m the first of my siblings to go to college, so I feel
like my expectation are a bit higher. I feel like I have more pressure on me to excel in my
education.

76
Finally, Ajalani expressed that her current financial hardships were the most significant
hindrance to her well-being while attending college. Ajalani voiced,
My personal life has impacted my well-being the most, mainly because I have no control
over it. But I’ve made use of my resources. There’s a program called HINET and they
actually help you get food stamps and transportation reimbursement. I was able to get my
bus pass reimbursed every month and get EBT food stamps through them. That really,
really helped because while I didn’t have a job and it still carries over like when I do have
a job. That really helped me put food on the table for myself.
Work
All eight participants were asked what aspect of college they found most challenging or
stressful in relation to their work commitments. Kahealani and Jayden revealed that they both
worked labor-intensive full-time jobs and found it difficult to complete their academic
obligations after a long day of work. Kahealani said, “I’m just tired after work because it’s really
labor-intensive. I do a lot of lifting and carrying. I do a lot of moving, so when I get home, I’m
pretty tired and exhausted.” Kahealani added, “I try to remind myself, you’re doing this for a
reason [college]. You gotta get your work done, and then you can relax.”
In a somewhat different situation, Kawena communicated that she felt pressure to
perform well in school by her employer, which, in turn, impacted her well-being. Kawena
receives tuition reimbursement for her classes and is required to show her final grades every
semester to her boss, which adds an additional layer of accountability and responsibility tied to
Kawena’s academic outcomes. In addition, Kawena communicated that her company was
offering her college tuition reimbursement with the intent of promoting her within the company

77
after she graduated. Just the same, Kawena said the pressure to perform well in college due to
her work expectations impacted her well-being the most:
I go to school, and if I’m not getting good grades and then what’s the point of them [her
company] having me as an employee. They are looking at me in the bigger picture in
their whole dynamic for the future.
Kawena continued, “I don’t think they pay for my schooling, so I can use it [college degree]
somewhere else. They are definitely trying to invest in the future of me being there for the long-
term.”
Ashley stated that her work environment posed the biggest threat to her overall well-
being the most while attending college due to health concerns. Specifically, Ashley mentioned
that she worked between 20 and 27 hours per week at a local Starbucks in a crowded mall. At the
time, despite the social gathering restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, customers would
not adhere to the social gathering mandates and often would not wear protective masks as well.
Ashley revealed, “I work at the mall, and it’s very, very busy even though we should be social
distancing. And I think that takes a toll on my well-being because I get scared.”
Well-Being Support Systems
In response to what participants did or experienced to support their well-being while in
college, all participants provided responses unique to their circumstances. Yet, in some instances,
there were commonalities in terms of how they supported their well-being. For instance, both
Sydney and Kahealani emphasized that they actually enjoyed attending college classes and
welcomed the learning process associated with the college experience. As a result, both Sydney
and Kahealani did not find attending college detrimental to their well-being while juggling both
work and caring for family members such as children or grandparents. In fact, attending college

78
may have increased several participants’ well-being. For instance, Sydney said, “It’s something I
do enjoy. Throughout my work career, even as a kid, I always tried learning. I don’t wanna even
call school a hobby, but it’s something I enjoy doing.” In a similar manner, Kahealani said,
Honestly, I didn’t find it [college] as stressful. I enjoy doing the work just because it’s
been a while since I’ve been to school. I had a lot of fun doing schoolwork, and I’m
interested in it as well. So, to me, it wasn’t really that stressful at all.
It is worth noting that both Sydney and Kahealani are non-traditional-age students
returning to college and voiced an appreciation for college learning at this stage of their lives.
Referring to college, Sydney shared,
If you’re told by your parents to go, you’re not going to enjoy it. If it’s something where
you’re looking for knowledge, you’re going to read the 60 pages in the chapter because
you want to find out what’s in those pages. Maybe I’m just old enough to enjoy it or
appreciate it differently.
Kahealani also added, “I really wanted to go back to school. I really wanted to make sure I was
focused and [my grandparents] understood because they know that it’s important to me.”
Kawena mentioned that having a supportive family was a key factor that aided her well-
being while attending college. In fact, when asked how Kawena dealt with the challenges that
impacted her well-being while juggling her commitments of college, personal life, and work,
Kawena revealed that having a supportive spouse, her husband, helped her manage these
challenges while attending college. Kawena commented,
He’s very supportive. He’s on the same page as me. For instance, when I had an exam or
something, I would go to the library right after work, and then my husband would pick up

79
the kids, make dinner, all of that stuff. He’ll go outside with the kids or take them to the
park.
When asked what the participants did to support their well-being while attending college,
Jayden and Ashley pointed to trusting external supports as a means for enriching their well-
being. For instance, Jayden, a military veteran attending college for the first time, mentioned that
he found taking yoga classes at LCC as a beneficial practice that reinforced his well-being while
attending college. Jayden commented,
I try to do yoga a few times a week. [Yoga classes] were on site below the auditorium in
the dance rooms. It definitely has a positive impact on my well-being. Just having that
positive energy around and then the healthy habits with yoga.
Jayden and Ashley both mentioned that they also utilized weekly therapy sessions to support
their well-being. Jayden explains, “I see a therapist once a week, and that definitely helps just to
get everything out and be able to hear my thoughts and not have to worry about anybody judging
me for the things that I’m saying.” Ashley added,
I just started therapy recently. I think that would help, especially now that I just turned
30. I think it’s a good time in my life to talk about my feelings. So, I think therapy is a
good one. Your therapist will tell you things to help you keep a good mental well-being.
In a somewhat different manner, Bryson, a military veteran returning to college, found
that exercise and daily morning affirmations aided in maintaining his well-being while attending
college. Bryson said, “It’s early in the morning, and I go to the gym, a stress reliever in a sense. I
try and go five days a week, but lately, it’s been like three.” Bryson continued, “Affirmations,
meditation, and definitely get some exercise. One of my biggest things, before I start my day, I

80
say, “it’s gonna be an awesome day, it’s gonna be great.” I have 10 minutes to myself just to
reassure myself that everything is gonna be all right no matter what.”
Research Question 2
The second research question asked, “How do commuter community college students
think about their sense of belonging relative to the campus environment?” An examination of the
data collected from the interviews revealed that the majority of the participants held favorable
recollections of their campus experiences and also utilized a full spectrum of campus services
that contributed to their academic achievement and success.
The Importance of Sense of Belonging on Campus
While answering questions throughout the interview discussions, six participants
recounted particular relationships, places, and events that positively impacted their sense of
belonging while on campus. To illustrate this point, when Ajalani was asked what aspect of her
college peer relationships she found most impactful, Ajalani mentioned her experiences at the
Native Hawaiian Center on campus. Ajalani commented,
Going to the Native Hawaiian Center, there were always people to say, Hi, how are you
doing? How are you doing in your classes? What’s your name? They introduced
themselves, and I made a lot of friends like that. We all had different majors, but we’ll go
and get lunch, and we’ll talk about our classes. I really like that about college. I can walk
around campus, and there’s always somebody to say hi to.
Bryson also added his sentiments on how he actively utilized various campus services
and attended social events on campus. For example, when asked what areas of the campus
environment he used the most, Bryson shares, “I would say the library. And the math tutoring lab
and writing center. It’s in the library as well.” Bryson also mentioned he would interact with his

81
counselor often to find out what classes he needed to take and what classes he should not take.
Additionally, Bryson enjoyed the social events while on campus. Bryson said, “I really enjoyed
the food trucks (while on campus). They (LCC) had like four or five food trucks, local vendors,
out there during events. You know food brings everyone together.” In a similar manner, Jayden
also utilized the library and the math lab. When asked about areas of the campus he used the
most outside of classroom hours, Jayden said,
The library, the math lab, I was using quite a bit. The library. It’s nice to get space for
quiet time, for quiet space to study. Plus, it’s got a good energy. You go to the library,
and everybody’s got their mind working, It’s so quiet, but it’s, like, full of life.
In a somewhat different manner, Kahealani cited that having positive interactions with
her teachers was worth noting with regards to her experiences with having a sense of belonging
on campus. Kahealani revealed,
I remember when I didn’t even attend college yet, I emailed Kathleen Cashman, the
coordinator for the HIT program. I wasn’t going to school yet, and she was willing to
email me and actually meet up with me and talk about the courses and what I needed to
do. I really appreciated that. She really helped me out on what I wanted to do. She also
gave me a list of classes I should take.
As a result, this experience strengthened Kahealani’s decision to enroll in college and is
currently majoring in the HIT program at LCC.
With regard to experiencing a sense of belonging on campus, Sydney had a somewhat
different perspective than Kahealani. For example, Sydney commented that he was relied on
using the campus as a place where he could study and complete his coursework as opposed to
home. Sydney commented,

82
I find I waste more time at home, where if I’m at campus, I can focus just on school. I
can sit down in between classes and focus on homework and just do it. I’m like, “I’m not
going home, I’m just doing homework. I just go outside in the courtyards with all the
benches and tables because you get the breeze going through, and it’s nice and peaceful.”
In addition to the campus grounds, Sydney was quick to point out his positive interactions with
his counselor. For instance, when asked about his experiences within the campus community,
Sydney said, “I bug my counselor every semester, and I ask her all kinds of dumb questions, and
she answers them beautifully. She answers them great, and it’s made my experience greater
because I can map out everything I’m trying to do and get a better idea of the college
experience.”
The remaining two participants communicated that they rarely utilized the campus
grounds outside of classroom hours, seldom connected with the campus staff or college peers,
and did not attend any on-campus activities. The underlying reason for both participants was
their commitments to family and work. For instance, when asked what areas of the campus
environment she utilized the least, Kawena mentioned, “All of them. I’ve never been to the
cafeteria, student life, or any of that stuff. Everything is closed. I’m not there in the daytime.”
Additionally, when asked which of the campus services she uses the least, Kawena cited,
I guess all of them. I don’t use the computer lab. I work all day, go to school at night. I’m
not gonna wait at the library at 8:00 at night trying to scan things or do things. I don’t
really use anything. Everything is closed by the time I get to them.
In a similar manner, when asked what areas of the campus environment she used the most
outside of classroom hours, Ashley stated,

83
I personally do not use any of them because if I’m not at school, I’m at home taking care
of the kids or having to go to work. I did find the café and the student lounge inviting. So,
I would have used those if it were under different circumstances. Everything is used
pretty much less because of my situation being a full-time mom, part-time worker, and
wife.
Equally, when asked which campus services Ashley used the most, Ashley did mention,
Financial aid services is the top number one thing that I use the most just to get me
through school. I wouldn’t be able to go to school if it wasn’t for that. It’s been a blessing
to be able to do everything just through email. They made it very easy for us.
The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic impacted virtually every facet of the eight participants’ lives
during the research portion of the study, particularly the impact on their well-being and
experiencing (or a lack thereof) a sense of belonging while attending college. An overarching
theme among the participants centered on the positive and negative experiences of taking
completely online courses (due to complete campus closures) for the 2020 spring, summer, and
fall semesters resulting from the social gathering restriction mandates imposed throughout the
state of Hawai’i. To illustrate this point, when asked what aspect of college that Sydney found
most challenging or stressful in relation to his work commitments, Sydney unexpectedly
commented that taking completely online courses actually made things easier in terms of
navigating his weekly schedule and reduced his weekly commute time to and from college to
zero. Similarly, when asked what aspect of college Sadie found most challenging or stressful in
relation to her personal life, Sadie commented,

84
I think just going on campus. Now that everything is online, I feel like I have more
freedom to time manage myself and how I can implement school with my work life and
with my personal life. Because now that we’re in our situation [COVID-19], I feel like I
need to be working, just because I’m in my situation. I feel like I need more money, so I
need more time to be able to make money but also go to school.
With regard to taking completely online classes, Ashley found having a synchronous video-
conferencing component, such as Zoom meetings, incorporated into her courses as beneficial.
For instance, when asked what aspect of college Ashley found most challenging or stressful in
relation to her personal life, Ashley said,
Meeting the class times in person. So, especially during this time, during COVID, doing
at-home Zoom calls made it a lot easier. So, people who have children like myself, two 2-
year old twin boys and a 7-year old boy who’s now staying at home. He’s doing
homeschooling during this time. So, it’s going to be a lot with having to educate him and
myself. Also, being a wife, a housekeeper, and working at least 20, 27 hours per week.
Not all of the participants shared similar sentiments about taking fully online courses due to the
COVID-19 restrictions. Bryson voiced having difficulties adjusting to the abrupt change of
taking fully online courses. For example, when asked what aspect Bryson found most
challenging or stressful in relation to his personal life, Bryson stated,
This Zoom here. We’re not in a classroom where we can raise our hand, like “Oh, I have
a question.” So, the availability of just having that [is not there]. It becomes very
challenging, as far as online. Going to a classroom, it’s something you’re used to going
like all the way through elementary to high school. I really don’t wanna be online, doing
Zoom.

85
Bryson also added, “Another thing I noticed is I’m stuck in a room, and it’s mentally
challenging. It does take a toll on you just sitting behind a computer all day. It’s mental fatigue
that you have to stress about.”
As noted in earlier excerpts from the participants’ responses in this chapter, several
participants mentioned their positive experiences within the campus environment and
accompanying campus services. For example, when asked what aspect of the campus community
impacted Sadie while attending college, Sadie mentioned, “I liked how when l went to school,
there was always different clubs or different activities going on in front of the library. I was like,
this is cool. I like how everyone’s involved.” Similarly, Jayden voiced his appreciation for the
yoga classes Jayden took while on campus.
Additionally, when asked what area(s) of the campus environment Jayden used the most
outside of classroom hours, Jayden echoed, “The library, the math lab, I was using quite a bit.
It’s nice to get a space for quiet time, for study.” In reference to the math lab, Jayden added, “I’m
not strong in algebra and struggled with that class. It was nice to have somebody available to
help me if I get confused. I logged quite a few hours at the math lab.” Finally, Ajalani voiced her
appreciation for the Native Hawaiian Center at LCC as an on-campus hub that provided
numerous opportunities for experiencing a sense of belonging and academic support for Ajalani.
For instance, when asked what aspect of her relationships with her peers she found most
important, Ajalani was quick to point out, “Being a college freshman going into the Native
Hawaiian Center, there were always people to say hi, how are you doing? What’s your name?
How are you doing in your classes? They introduced themselves, and I made a lot of friends like
that.” Additionally, when asked what campus services Ajalani used the most outside of
classroom hours, Ajalani said, “the Native Hawaiian Center. Everything kind of really comes

86
back to that. I spend a lot of time there.” Ajalani further added, “I always felt welcomed at LCC.
Everyone is very friendly, and before the COVID thing happened, there were a lot of campus
events. Whether it be from student life, they would put on fairs, like the career fair, that was
actually really cool.”
Unfortunately, the aforementioned campus activities, associations, and connections are
currently unavailable due to the COVID-19 restrictions on Oahu, Hawai’i. Moreover, at the time
of this study, the limit for social gatherings was five people in public settings.
Conclusion
This study explored how student well-being and experiencing a sense of belonging
impact student persistence among commuter community college students in Hawai’i. In Chapter
Four, the eight participants were introduced along with relevant demographic information
pertaining to this study. Each participant provided unique insights to their lived experiences
relating to their well-being and sense of belonging at LCC while managing their schedules that
included school, personal life, and work obligations.
Four main themes emerged from the data collected through the interviews, (a) the impact
of school, personal life, and work on well-being, (b) well-being support systems, (c) the
importance of sense of belonging on campus, and (d) the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Chapter Five provides a discussion of how the data connect the emerging themes to the
conceptual framework of this study. Chapter Five will also examine implications for future
practice at LCC and similar colleges. Finally, Chapter Five offers opportunities for further
research that may provide improvements for commuter community college students attending
LCC.

87
Chapter Five: Discussions and Recommendations
This final chapter will present the discussion findings within the context of the theoretical
framework, literature review, and the two research questions central to this study:
1. How do commuter community college students think about their well-being relative to
their academic responsibilities, personal life, and work commitments?
2. How do commuter community college students think about their sense of belonging
relative to the campus environment?
In addition, this chapter will offer recommendations for practice and explore opportunities for
further research that may provide improvements for commuter community college students
attending LCC.
As discussed in Chapter One, recent enrollment statistics reveal that persistence rates
among community colleges are substantially lower than among their peers at 4-year universities.
Additionally, persistence rates at community colleges in Hawai’i are lower than the nationwide
community college average. Moreover, “Seventy-five percent of today’s students are juggling
some combination of families, jobs, and school while commuting to class” (Complete College
America, 2011, p. 2). Furthermore, commuter community college students face additional
challenges, and perhaps more difficult barriers to graduation, such as transportation issues,
juggling multiple life roles, and limited campus time. As a result, commuter community college
students may find themselves under-utilizing the campus network and services in comparison to
their traditional student counterparts. The purpose of this study seeks to explore how student
well-being and experiencing a sense of belonging impact student persistence among commuter
community college students in Hawai’i. Through the lens of Prilleltensky’s (2005) conceptual
framework on well-being and Tinto’s (1975) model of student retention, this study highlighted

88
the collective experiences of eight commuter community college students attending college in
Hawai’i.
Discussion of Findings
Prilleltensky ’s Model of Well-Being
The students’ experiences at LCC were examined through Prilleltensky’s model of well-
being, which defines well-being as “a positive state of affairs in which the personal, relational,
and collective needs and aspirations of individuals and communities are fulfilled” (Prilleltensky,
2005, p. 54). Moreover, “Well-being consists of three primary sites (personal, relational, and
collective), each of which has specific signs or manifestations, and sources or determinants”
(Prilleltensky, 2005, p. 53). Additionally, “There are many aspects of the psychosocial,
economic, political, and physical environment that influence the state of well-being; and there
are many aspects of well-being that reach far beyond health” (Prilleltensky, 2005, p. 54).
Prilleltensky (2005) continued, “While we can distinguish among the well-being of a person, a
relationship, or a community, they are highly interdependent.” Signs of personal well-being may
include “self-determination and a sense of control, self-efficacy, and physical and mental health.
Signs of relational well-being include caring, respect for diversity, and support. Manifestations
of collective well-being include obligations in society, universal access to high-quality education
and health facilities, affordable housing, safety, and a clean environment” (Prilleltensky, 2005, p.
55).
Through the lens of Prilleltensky’s model of well-being, the interview data suggest that
commuter students’ academic experiences at LCC were impacted, in varying degrees, by their
state of well-being, including personal, relational, and collective dimensions. With regard to
personal well-being, each participant had a unique and nuanced view of where their personal

89
well-being was situated, predominantly within the realms of physical and psychological personal
well-being. For instance, Ajalani voiced that the commute to and from school posed the most
challenging and stressful aspect of her college experience. Ajalani mentioned, “I have to take the
bus, and the bus doesn’t run up to the campus, and I had evening classes. So, I had to take like
two backpacks, walk up and down the hill.” Ajalani added,
It takes a long time on the bus, about an hour and a half to two hours depending on
traffic. So, I have to plan my day accordingly. But yeah, I would think transportation was
the biggest challenge for me.
Given the terrain and landscape throughout O’ahu, unlike established massive urban grids
often found in coastal cities like Los Angeles or New York, commuter community college
students in Hawai’i often face additional challenges, such as commuting, in comparison to
residential college students. As noted in the literature review, while residential students can
navigate their entire academic experience within walking distances, “commuter students are
concerned with traffic, road conditions, parking, their automobiles, transportation schedules, and
safety issues related to arriving home after dark” (Ortman, 1995, p. 5).
In addition to the added challenges often facing commuter community college students,
the literature review suggests that the majority of undergraduates hold at least one non-traditional
student characteristic. In fact, according to an NCES study conducted in 2000, “Almost three-
quarters of undergraduates are in some way ‘nontraditional’” (Choy, 2002, p. 3). “NCES defines
non-traditional status by students who display any of the following characteristics: not enrolled
in college after high school graduation, attends part-time, works full-time, financially
independent” (Choy, 2002, pp. 2–3). To illustrate an example, Jayden, a military veteran who
returned to college after 15 years, mentioned that his concern for his mental health posed a

90
significant challenge while attending college. Jayden revealed, “I have a number of different
mental illness diagnoses that I’ve been navigating for a while due to my time in service when I
was in the army.” Jayden continued, “I see a therapist once a week. Having somebody to help me
navigate all of that definitely helps to keep the pressure down, to decompress, and then I don’t
freak out.”
The participants spoke frequently about their families as being a positive factor in their
well-being. Relational well-being between the participants and their family members created
opportunities for trusting and supportive relationships. For example, when asked what aspect of
college was most challenging or stressful in relation to her personal life, Kahealani said, “I didn’t
find it very stressful at all regarding my personal life, just because I communicated well with my
family, that this certain time is when I want to study, when I want to do my [schoolwork].”
Kahealani continued, “And if I’m more busy than usual, I’ll let them know like, I have more
things to do today, so if you guys can just let me be on my own.” Kahealani further added, “I
told them that I really wanna go back to school, and they understood because they know that it’s
important to me.” In a similar vein, Kawena exhibited “signs of relational well-being that include
caring and support” while attending college (Prilleltensky, 2005, p. 55). Kawena said, “My
husband, he helps a lot. If I need to do [schoolwork], he’ll go outside with the kids or take them
to the park.” Kawena added, “when I had an exam, like right after work, my husband would pick
up the kids, make dinner, all of that stuff. He’s very supportive, you know. Having a supportive
spouse, he’s on the same page as me. More money, more education, more everything. It’s a win-
win.”
Collective well-being presents an opportunity for individuals to seek support from a
larger community through meaningful interactions. According to Prilleltensky (2005),

91
“Communities, as sites of well-being, embody characteristics such as affordable housing, clean
air, and high-quality healthcare and education facilities. All these factors take place in the
physical space of communities” (p. 54). Additionally, signs of collective well-being may include
“obligations in society, employment opportunities, safety, a clean environment, and peace”
(Prilleltensky, 2005, p. 55). When asked if any aspect of their community impacted their well-
being while attending college, the participants’ responses varied depending on their
circumstances. For instance, Ajalani was quick to point out how pivotal that the HINET
Ho’olaʻike Program at LCC was in helping her locate financial resources for herself while
attending college. Ajalani mentioned,
They help you get food stamps, reimburse your gas mileage. I was able to get my bus
pass reimbursed every month. So that really helped me to be able to put food on the table
for myself and travel back and forth from school.
Unfortunately, the detrimental effects that cascaded throughout the communities on
O’ahu from the COVID-19 pandemic undoubtedly compromised the communal aspect of well-
being of the participants while attending college. To illustrate an example, when asked what
impacted Bryson’s well-being the most while attending college, Bryson responded that not
having the option to attend college courses on campus, due to the social gathering restrictions
placed on the communities on O’ahu, affected him deeply. Bryson responded,
I’m stuck in a room, and it’s mentally challenging. You have to have a strict plan so that
way you won’t feel lethargic during the whole day. ’Cause it does take a toll on you just
sitting behind a computer all day because it’s mental fatigue that you have to stress about.
Bryson added, “When I was going to school, it’s like a purpose. I take that drive to the
school and then to interact with other students there. But that was before Zoom. It’s not the

92
same.” Equally important, Ashley cited her work environment as a primary threat to her well-
being while attending college. When asked what aspect of her community impacted her well-
being the most while attending college, Ashley replied,
The only community I see right now is the mall because I work there. It’s very, very busy
there even though we should be social distancing. And I think it takes a toll on my well-
being because I get scared. I can’t wait to have everything go back to normal.
Tinto ’s Model of Student Retention
Tinto’s model of student retention was the second framework used to examine the student
experiences at LCC. According to Tinto (1975), “The model argues that it is the individual’s
integration into the academic and social systems of the college that most directly relates to his
continuance in that college” (p. 96). Furthermore, “Other things being equal, the higher the
degree of integration of the individual into the college systems, the greater will be his
commitment to the specific institution and to the goal of college completion” (Tinto, 1975, p.
96). Tinto (1975) added, “In the final analysis, it is the interplay between the individual’s
commitment to the goal of college completion and his commitment to the institution that
determines whether or not the individual decides to drop out from college” (p. 96). However,
Sufficiently high commitment to the goal of college completion, even with minimal
levels of academic and/or social integration and therefore minimal institutional
commitment, might not lead to dropout from the institution. In this case, the individual
might decide to “stick it out” until completion of the degree program. (Tinto, 1975, p. 96)
Likewise, “Sufficiently high levels of institutional commitment may, however, lead
individuals to remain in college even though they are little committed to the goal of college
completion. The phenomenon of ‘getting by’ is often the result” (Tinto, 1975, p. 97). In sum,

93
persistence in college is, however, not simply the outcome of individual characteristics,
prior experiences, or prior commitments. As developed here, one must view dropout from
college as the outcome of a longitudinal process of interactions between the individual
and the institution (peers, faculty, administration, etc.). (Tinto, 1975, p. 103).
Consequently, “Assuming unchanging external conditions, dropout is taken to be the result of the
individual’s experiences in the academic and social systems of the college” (Tinto, 1975, p. 103).
The interview data presented varying degrees of experiences with regard to experiencing
a sense of belonging on campus, specifically, with “the individual’s integration into the academic
and social systems of the college” (Tinto, 1975, p. 96). For instance, when asked what areas of
the campus environment Ajalani uses the most, she was adamant about her appreciation for the
Native Hawaiian Center. In fact, her responses clearly spoke to her reliance and integration
within a culturally specific social system on campus that inevitably supported Ajalani’s academic
pursuits. Sadie shared similar sentiments as Ajalani with regard to the impact of being socially
integrated in college. For instance, when asked if any aspect of the campus community has
impacted Sadie while attending college, Sadie commented,
I liked how when I went to school, there was always like, different clubs, or different
activities going on in front of the library, to get more exposure of their clubs or their
association. I was like, this is cool. I like how everyone’s involved.
Additionally, several participants revealed the benefit of integrating themselves within the
academic system at LCC. For instance, when asked what area(s) of the campus environment
Bryson uses the most, Bryson commented, “the library, the math tutoring lab, and occasionally
the writing center.” Bryson further added,

94
I utilized a lot of the resources they have on campus. I was always talking to my
counselor and find out what other classes I need to take or what I shouldn’t have to take.
So, I got a lot of guidance to that.
In a similar fashion, Jayden shared a comparable outlook about his academic-related
involvements at LCC. When asked what areas of the campus environment Jayden uses the most,
Jayden mentioned, “The library and the math lab, I was using quite a bit. The library. It’s nice to
get space for quiet time, a quiet space to study. It’s got good energy.”
Likewise, Ashley mentioned that technology enabled her to strengthen her connections
within the academic system at LCC. Ashley said,
So last year’s math class, [due to the COVID-19 social gathering restrictions] we all got
sent home, and then our project came. We weren’t in class anymore to ask [the teacher]
questions. He’d have Zoom meetings, where you would actually have to talk to him. I got
an A on the project, so I was really happy.
Conversely, there were participants who demonstrated that they were satisfied with
having “sufficiently high commitment to the goal of college completion, even with minimal
levels of academic and/or social integration and therefore minimal institutional commitment”
(Tinto, 1975, p. 96). To illustrate an example, Kawena mentioned,
To be honest, I’m going to class, then go home. I got a lot of stuff on my plate. So, the
last thing I’m into is exchanging numbers and trying to hang out and go have a cocktail. I
just want to go home, ’cause I got to go to work the next day.
Moreover, when asked what area(s) of the campus environment Kawena uses the most,
Kawena revealed, “I’ve only been to the library like three times. Cause I haven’t been anywhere
else. I’ve been to student services. I got my ID and went to the library like three times.” In a

95
similar vein, Ashley, “a full-time mom, part-time worker, and wife,” was limited in her
participation in academic-related activities outside of classroom hours, and therefore, displayed
marginal levels of academic and/or social integration at LCC. When asked what areas of the
campus environment Ashley used the most, Ashley commented, “I personally did not use any of
them because if I’m not at school, I’m at home taking care of the kids or having to go to work.”
However, although Ashley might have been limited with her interactions within the academic
and social systems at LCC, the instances where Ashley did utilize the campus services, such as
financial aid, proved to be essential. For example, when asked which campus services Ashley
uses the most, Ashley responded,
Financial aid services are the number one thing that I use the most just to get me through
school. I wouldn’t be able to go to school if it wasn’t for that. It’s been a blessing to be
able to do everything just through email.
Moreover, Ashley exhibited “sufficiently high commitment to the goal of college
completion, even with minimal levels of academic and/or social integration” (Tinto, 1975, p. 96).
Ashley commented,
I wasn’t sure if I wanted to do business or teaching, and then I decided to do teaching, so
I had to change my major to teaching. I’ve figured how to do everything myself as far as
going to the catalogs, seeing what classes I have to take, doing that on my own.
To conclude, chronicling the participants’ narratives through the lens of Prilleltensky’s
model of well-being and Tinto’s model of student retention, this study examined how the role of
well-being and experiencing a sense of belonging on campus impacted the college experiences of
the participants. Through this nuanced analysis of the interview data, the following implications
for practice are presented.

96
Implications for Practice
Findings from this study may be used to help other 2-year institutions or community
colleges improve commuter students’ well-being and sense of belonging. The study and its
research findings support applying theoretical models based on well-being and experiencing a
sense of belonging to develop strategies that may strengthen student persistence rates in
community colleges in Hawai’i. This section discusses three implications of practice based on
the data gathered from the participants in this research study.
Well-Being Assessment Survey and Interventions
Based on the findings of this study, it is recommended that LCC develop a well-being
assessment tool to help measure relevant factors associated with the multi-dimensional facets of
well-being to support intervention initiatives. Prilleltensky et al. (2015) offered an easy-to-use
instrument called the I COPPE Scale. The I COPPE Scale includes “components of well-being
and measurements of well-being. Our synthesis yielded six domains of well-being: interpersonal,
community, occupational, physical, psychological, and economic (I COPPE)” (Prilleltensky et
al., 2015, p. 201). “These domains, in addition to overall well-being, afford clinicians,
epidemiologists, and community researchers an opportunity to create profiles of how individuals
and groups function in key areas of life and formulate interventions accordingly” (Prilleltensky
et al., 2015, pp. 201–202). The I COPPE Scale is comprised of 21 items and conceptually is a
self-anchoring scaling method that taps into the respondent’s internal reference of what
he or she considers the “best” and “worst” levels of satisfaction in a global or specific
domain of his or her life now, in the past, and in the future. (Prilleltensky et al., 2015, p.
203)

97
The I COPPE Scale can be deployed as a web-based, easy-to-administer survey to
students and can be completed in one session. Once the survey is completed, LCC can use “the
I COPPE tool to assess well-being and plan interventions according to the unique profile of the
individuals” (Prilleltensky et al., 2015, p. 213). Ultimately, the results can serve as a tool for self-
reflection and guide students in addressing specific needs within each of the multi-faceted
dimensions of well-being. This information may be vital to students, who might be encouraged,
based on the I COPPE Scale, to undertake the needed precautions for self-care and overall well-
being as a means of bolstering student success and persistence through college.
Organizing Outreach to Students Through the Student Wellness Committee
Participants in this study shared similar viewpoints of how campus services, events,
associations, and campus-related relationships supported their academic aims and enriched their
sense of place at LCC. Be that as it may, increased programming (student wellness committee),
revised policy changes, and periodic outreach to students can help bolster the overall awareness
of the breadth of resources and connections available to students, thereby encouraging strong
student academic performance, persistence, and graduation. Driven by a common goal of
strengthening student well-being and sense of belonging, this study proposes developing the
student wellness committee at LCC.
The strategic aims of the student wellness committee are twofold-enhancing students’
well-being and creating a campus culture of inclusion. By utilizing the I COPPE survey with
additional questions relating to sense of belonging, the student wellness committee can assess the
well-being and sense of belonging of every participating student and plan interventions
according to their unique profiles. Moreover, the student wellness committee can leverage its
connections with numerous departments, campus services, and student organizations to

98
progressively promote a campus culture of well-being and inclusion. Examples of academic units
that may welcome a shared responsibility in supporting positive student well-being and sense of
belonging include the student health center, learning resource center, campus life, counseling and
advising, and job prep services. Correspondingly, concerns may be raised “as to how to identify
the needs of less involved students. Potentially, these are some of the most at-risk students so
there must be diligence placed on identifying their needs as well” (Miller et al., 2018, p. 864). In
that event, a collective effort needs to be made to ensure that the voices of all students are
acknowledged and understood. Therefore, “Activities such as focus groups, interviews, and
panel discussions could be utilized to help give voice to students’ needs and identify approaches
to supporting their wellbeing” (Miller et al., 2018, p. 864). Ultimately, administrators, faculty,
staff, and students should contribute to a culture of wellness, resilience, and community to
strengthen a sense of belonging within the campus environment.
Leveraging Peers
The findings revealed that the participants received meaningful support and acceptance
from sharing their struggles relating to their well-being with others. Therefore, an
accommodating, student-centered viewpoint might suggest the efficacy of facilitating and
extending these relationships from the academic community. This study’s results support the
model of developing designated, lifestyle-appropriate peer-support programs that may include
coaching, advice/guidance, mentorships, and support groups that seek to connect comparable
lifestyle-appropriate students who share similar challenges while attending college. Lifestyle-
appropriate students may be grouped into cohorts with similar lifestyle dynamics such as age,
caring for dependents, employment status, delayed entry to college, military veteran status, and
financial independence. In fact, “Peer-support programs can help by providing an established

99
community for students who can normalize transition experiences, offer social support, reduce
the stigma associated with help-seeking, and connect to useful services on and off campus” and
“are commonly used to help students with adjustment to college life and persistence in their
education” (Kees et al., 2017, pp. 30–31).
The design and function of the peer-support groups would serve as a means to encourage
well-being and academic success and promote college-going behavior among students. The peer-
support model would be similar to the Peer Advisors for Veteran Education (PAVE) student
program model. The PAVE model “may help student veterans with the transition into college by
connecting them with other student veterans who can offer information, resources, and a
community of people who have had similar experiences and can offer social support” (Kees et
al., 2017, p. 31). The commonality between the PAVE model and the lifestyle-appropriate, peer-
support model being offered is the assemblage of students that share similar lifestyle
characteristics while navigating the college experience.
Creating an alliance of like-minded college students that share similar lifestyle markers
may be particularly effective, as “a peer mentor/mentee relationship provides students with
someone who offers empathy, trust, some core knowledge and understanding of the institution,
and a shared point of view often lacking in traditional advising” (Krusemark & White, 2020,
para. 3 ?). In fact, “Researchers have established that peer mentoring facilitates new students’
adjustment to campus and increase students’ satisfaction with their universities” (Collier, 2017,
p. 10). Additionally, the benefit of peer-support programs may result in positive outcomes that
continue well past college completion. For instance, “The 2018 Strada Gallup Alumni Survey
data shows that college graduates are two times more likely to be engaged at work if they had a

100
mentor in college who encouraged them to pursue their goals and dreams” (Krusemark & White,
2020).
Similar to the PAVE model, the peer-support model will focus on three pillars: student
outreach, personalized support, and campus resource linkage. For example, lifestyle-appropriate
peer advisors could reach out to selected students throughout each academic semester and check
in with students to see how things are going. By initiating dialogue with students, peer advisors
can create opportunities to build trust and rapport with students, which builds the basis for more
personalized conversations in the future. Finally, upon receiving training about relevant on-
campus and off-campus resources available to students, a peer advisor will be well-equipped to
direct students to the best available resource for their needs whenever a student has a concern.
Enacting a lifestyle-appropriate peer-support program would serve two purposes-enhance the
well-being and strengthen the academic and social integration of students attending LCC.
Future Research
As stated previously, there is a gap in research on student persistence among commuter
community college students in Hawai’i. This study focused on examining how well-being and
experiencing a sense of belonging impact student persistence among commuter community
college students in Hawai’i. By utilizing theories of well-being and sense of belonging, this study
offered an opportunity to analyze the lived experiences of eight commuter community college
students attending one community college on O’ahu, Hawai’i. Noting the shortage of research on
this particular topic, this study contributes to the research on commuter community college
students from Hawai’i and informs practice by identifying how well-being and sense of
belonging can support robust student academic performance and resilient persistence towards
college completion.

101
Future research should continue to explore approaches that support persistence among
commuter community college students specific to their respective academic and locality sites. It
is worth noting that a limitation of this study involved the data collection from one site only.
Furthermore, understanding that LCC is a unique academic setting nestled in a relatively
secluded locale in Hawai’i, community colleges in the continental United States may not share
comparable student characteristics, cultural similarities, or cost of living comparisons as those
attending LCC. Additionally, future research should continue to examine how well-being and
sense of belonging impact commuter community college students in a post-COVID 19 era with
the commitment of developing further opportunities that support student success, persistence,
and college completion.
Conclusion
This study explored how student well-being and experiencing a sense of belonging on
campus impact student persistence among commuter community college students in Hawai’i.
The analysis of this study was guided by two research questions:
1. How do commuter community college students think about their well-being relative to
their academic responsibilities, personal life, and work commitments?
2. How do commuter community college students think about their sense of belonging
relative to the campus environment?
The research outcomes raised four central findings: (a) the impact of college, personal life, and
work on well-being, (b) the utility of well-being support systems, (c) the importance of sense of
belonging on campus, and (d) the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Historically, the benefits
of earning a college education have produced significant returns on investments for graduates
and serves as an enriching conduit for the public good. In fact, “An extensive body of research

102
has argued that obtaining a college diploma is a good deal for graduates on almost any measure –
from higher earnings to lower unemployment rates” (Pew Research Center, 2016, para. 1 ?).
Moreover, “On virtually every measure of economic well-being and career attainment—from
personal earnings to job satisfaction to being employed full time—young college graduates are
outperforming their peers with less education” (Pew Research Center, 2014, para. 1?).
This study centered on the lived experiences of eight commuter community college
students contending with multiple life roles while attending college. Semi-structured interviews
were conducted to gather the perspectives and insights of these students and revealed how well-
being and experiencing a sense of belonging on campus impacted their academic journeys. This
study gave voice to commuter community college students from Hawai’i to discuss the ongoing
challenges they face while working towards college completion.
Community colleges continue to offer a pathway towards higher education attainment for
countless Americans working towards the American Dream. Unfortunately, poor persistence and
graduation rates are often barriers to graduation or transfer for community college students.
Understanding commuter community college students’ particular needs and designing
resolutions to support academic success are complex issues and can be improved with a unified
effort shared across multiple academic units. When community colleges understand how to best
support students, students will inevitably perform, persist, and graduate at higher rates.
Recognizing that well-being and sense of belonging play critical roles in student success is key
to unlocking what community colleges can do to best serve their communities and beyond.

103
References
Aljohani, O. (2016). A Comprehensive Review of the Major Studies and Theoretical Models of
Student Retention in Higher Education. Higher Education Studies, 6, 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v6n2p1
Astin, A. W. (1973). The impact of dormitory living on students. Educational Record, 54, 204-
210.
Astin, A. W. (1977). Four critical years. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1982). Minorities in American higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A development theory for higher education. Journal
of College Student Development, 40, 518–529.
Baldwin, D. R., Towler, K., Oliver, M. D., II, & Datta, S. (2017). An examination of college
student wellness: A research and liberal arts perspective. Health Psychology Open, 4, 1–
9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055102917719563
Berkman, L. F. (1995). The role of social relations in health promotion. Psychosomatic
Medicine, 57, 245–254. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006842-199505000-00006
Biddex, J. P. (2015). Understanding and Addressing Commuter Student Needs: New Directions
for Student Services (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Boazman, J. K., Sayer, M. F., & Easton-Brooks, D. (2012). Mediating Factors of Personal
Wellbeing in Gifted College Students: Early-College Entrants and Honors College
Students. Journal of Social Research & Policy, 3, 111–130.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods (5th ed.). Pearson

104
Calcagno, J. C., Bailey, T., Jenkins, D., Kienzl, G., & Leinbach, T. (2008). Community college
student success: What institutional characteristics make a difference? Economics of
Education Review, 27, 632–645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.07.003
Caunt, B. S., Franklin, J., Brodaty, N. E., & Brodaty, H. (2012). Exploring the causes of
subjective well-being: A content analysis of people ’s recipes for long-term happiness.
Springer.
Center for Community College Student Engagement. (n.d.). Why focus on student engagement?
Retrieved March 10, 2019, from https://cccse.org/why-focus-student-engagement
Center for Community College Student Engagement. (2017). Even one semester full-time
enrollment and student success. https://www.ccsse.org/docs/Even_One_Semester.pdf
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Well-being concepts.
https://www.cdc.gov/hrqol/wellbeing.htm#three
Chaparro, M. P., Zaghloul, S. S., Holck, P., & Dobbs, J. (2009, August 4). Food insecurity
prevalence among college students at the University of Hawai’i at Manoa. Public Health
Nutrition, 12, 2097–2103. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980009990735
Chickering, A. W. (1974). Commuters versus residents. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Choy, S. (Ed.). (2002). Nontraditional Undergraduates. U.S. Department of Education.
Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (2012). Handbook of Research on Student
Engagement. New York Dordrecht Heidelberg London: Springer Science + Business
Media LLC. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7
Collier, P. J. (2017). Why peer mentoring is an effective approach for promoting college student
success. Metropolitan Universities, 28, 9–18. https://doi.org/10.18060/21539

105
Community College Research Center. (2017). Community college FAQs.
https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Community-College-FAQs.html
Community College Research Center. (2019). Student persistence, completion, and transfer.
https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/: https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Student-Persistence-
Completion-and-Transfer.html
Complete College America. (2011). Time is the enemy. https://doi.org/completecollege.org
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
David, O. (2016). Economic inequality and college admissions policies. Cornell Journal of Law
and Public Policy, 26, 101–123.
The Department of Numbers. (2017). Hawaii residential rent and rental statistics.
https://www.deptofnumbers.com/rent/hawaii/
Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, Culture, and Subjective Well-Being:
Emotional and Cognitive Evaluations of Life. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 403–
425. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145056
Digest of Education Statistics. (2017). Tuition costs of colleges and universities.
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=76
Docan-Morgan, T. (2011). Everything changed: Relational turning point events in college
teacher-student relationships from teachers’ perspectives. Communication Education, 60,
20–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2010.497223

106
Fernandes, A., Ford, A., Rayner, G., & Pretorius, L. (2017). Building a sense of belonging
among tertiary commuter students: The Monash Non-Residential Colleges program.
Student Success, 8, 31–42. https://doi.org/10.5204/ssj.v8i2.380
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, 613–628.
Goldrick-Rab, S., Richardson, J., Schneider, J., Hernandez, A., & Cady, C. (2018). Still hungry
and homeless in college. University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Graham, J. R. (2010). Social work practitioners and subjective well-being: Social work
practitioners and subjective well-being: Personal factors that contribute to high levels of
subjective well-being. International Social Work, 53, 757–772.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872810368394
GuildHE. (2018). Wellbeing in higher education: A GuildHE research report.
https://www.guildhe.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/GuildHE-Wellbeing-in-Higher-
Education-WEB.pdf
Hanan, H. (2013). Open Space as Meaningful Place for Students in ITB Campus. Procedia:
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 85, 308–317.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.361
Hawaii State Department of Labor & Industrial Relations. (2017). Minimum wage to increase to
$10.10 in 2018. http://labor.hawaii.gov/blog/news/minimum-wage-to-increase-to-10-10-
in-2018/

107
Higher Education Today. (2018, September 6). The mental and physical well-being of incoming
freshmen: Three decades of research. https://www.higheredtoday.org/2018/09/06/mental-
physical-well-incoming-freshmen-three-decades-research/
Hoffman, E. M. (2014, January 8). Faculty and Student Relationships: Context Matters. College
Teaching, 62(1), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2013.817379
Hoffman, M., Richmond, J., Morrow, J., & Salomone, K. (2003). Investigating “Senses of
Belonging” in First-Year College Students. Journal of College Student Retention, 4, 227–
257. https://doi.org/10.2190/DRYC-CXQ9-JQ8V-HT4V
Hulse, N. (2019). Preferences in College Admissions. Society, 56, 353–356.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-019-00380-7
Jacoby, B. (1990, January 1). Adapting the Institution to Meet the Needs of Commuter Students.
Challenges of Diversity, 1, 61–71.
Jacoby, B. (2002, December 15). Why Involve Commuter Students in Learning? New Directions
for Higher Education, 2000, 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.10901
Jacoby, B. (2004). Engaging First-Year Commuter Students in Learning. First-Year Student
Experiences, 15, 12–30.
Jacoby, B., & Garland, J. (2004). Strategies for enhancing commuter student success. Journal of
College Student Retention, 6(1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.2190/567C-5TME-Q8F4-
8FRG
Jensen, U. (2011). Factors Influencing Student Retention in Higher Education. Pacific Policy
Research Center. Kapi’olani Community College. (2019). Tuition and fees.
https://www.kapiolani.hawaii.edu/paying-for-college/tuition-and-fees/

108
Karp, M. M., Hughes, K. L., & O’Gara, L. (2008). An exploration of Tinto ’s integration
framework for community college students. Teachers College, Columbia University:
Community College Research Center.
Kee, Y., Lee, S. J., & Phillips, R. (Eds.). (2016). Social Factors and Community Well-Being.
Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29942-6
Kees, M., Risk, B., Meadowbrooke, C., Nellett, T., & Spinner, J. (2017). Peer Advisors for
Veteran Education (PAVE): Implementing a sustainable peer support program for student
veterans on college campuses. Metropolitan Universities, 28(3), 30–49.
https://doi.org/10.18060/21541
Kelchen, R. (2018). A look at college students’ living arrangements.
https://robertkelchen.com/2018/05/28/a-look-at-college-students-living-
arrangements/#_ftn2
Kim, Y. K., & Lundberg, C. A. (2015, September 3). A structural model of the relationship
between student–faculty interaction and cognitive skills development among college
students. Research in Higher Education, 57, 288–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-
015-9387-6
Kim, Y. K., & Sax, L. J. (2007). Different patterns of student-faculty interaction in research
universities: An analysis by student gender, race, SES, and first-generation status.
University of California, Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher Education.
Krusemark, S., & White, G. (2020). Relationships Drive Success: How Peer Mentoring
Empowers Students. Liberal Education, 106(1/2).
Kuh, G. D., Gonyea, R. M., & Palmer, M. (2001). The disengaged commuter student: Fact or
fiction? Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning.

109
MacDonald, K. (2018). A review of the literature: The needs of nontraditional students in
postsecondary education. Strategic Enrollment Management Quarterly, 5, 159–164.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sem3.20115
Martin, D., & Joomis, K. (2007). Building Teachers: A Constructivist Approach to Introducing
Education. Wadsworth.
Maunder, R. E. (2018). Students’ peer relationships and their contribution to university
adjustment: The need to belong in the university community. Journal of Further and
Higher Education, 42, 756–768. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2017.1311996
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE
Publications.
McClenney, K., Marti, C., & Adkins, C. (2012). Student engagement and student outcomes: Key
findings from CCSSE validation research. Community College Survey of Student
Engagement.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Kindle Edition. Wiley
Miller, M. L., Boyer, C., Emerson, M. R., Neville, M. W., Skoy, E. T., Vogt, E. M., Volino, L.,
Worrall, C. L., Zitko, K. L., & Ross, L. J. (2018). AACP Report of the 2017-2018
Student Affairs Standing Committee. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education,
82(7), 862–873.
Moses, J., Bradley, G. L., & O’Callaghan, F. V. (2016). When College Students Look after
Themselves: Self-Care Practices and Well-Being. Journal of Student Affairs Research
and Practice, 53, 346–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2016.1157488

110
Muhammad, S., Sapri, M., & Sipan, I. (2013). Academic Buildings and Their Influence on
Students’ Wellbeing in Higher Education Institutions. Social Indicators Research, 115,
1159–1178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0262-6
Museus, S. D., Zhang, D., & Kim, M. J. (2016, January 5). Developing and Evaluating the
Culturally Engaging Campus Environments (CECE) Scale: An examination of content
and construct validity. Research in Higher Education, 57, 768–793.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-015-9405-8
Nakajima, M. A., Dembo, M. H., & Mossler, R. (2012). Student Persistence in Community
Colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 36, 591–613.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920903054931
National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Nontraditional undergraduates/definitions and
data. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs/web/97578e.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2010a). Digest of Education Statistics.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_240.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2010b). Number and percentage distribution of
students enrolled in postsecondary institutions, by level, disability status, and selected
student characteristics: 2003-04 and 2007-08.
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (2017). Persistence & retention 2017.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_240.asp
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (2018). Completing college national 2018
report. https://nscresearchcenter.org/signaturereport16/

111
Nelson, D., Misra, K., Sype, G. E., & Mackie, W. (2016). An analysis of the relationship
between distance from campus and GPA of commuter students. Journal of International
Education Research, 12, 37–45. https://doi.org/10.19030/jier.v12i1.9565
Office, U. I. (n.d.). Student Right-to-Know. Retrieved from UH Institutional Research &
Analysis Office: http://hawaii.edu/iro/srtk.php?reportId=SRTK
The Ohio State University. (n.d.). Sense of belonging in the college classroom.
https://ucat.osu.edu/bookshelf/teaching-topics/shaping-a-positive-learning-
environment/sense-of-belonging-in-the-college-classroom/
Ortman, J. (1995). Commuter students in colleges and universities. University of Illinois.
Pascarella, E. T. (2006). How college affects students: Ten directions for future research. Journal
of College Student Development, 47, 508–520. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2006.0060
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1998). Studying college students in the 21st century:
Meeting new challenges. The Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 151-165.
https://www.muse.jhu.edu/article/30045
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Pew Research Center. (2014). The rising cost of not going to college.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2014/02/11/the-rising-cost-of-not-going-to-
college/
Pew Research Center. (2016). The value of a college education.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2016/10/06/5-the-value-of-a-college-
education/
Pizzuti-Ashby, J., & Alary, D. G. (2008). Campus snapshot: Assessing the campus environment
through a student lens. University College of the Fraser Valley.

112
Prilleltensky, I. (2005). Promoting well-being: Time for a paradigm shift in health and human
services. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 33, 53–60.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14034950510033381
Prilleltensky, I., Dietz, S., Prilleltensky, O., Myers, N. D., Rubenstein, C. L., Jin, Y., &
McMahon, A. (2015). Assessing Multidimensional Well-Being: Development and
Validation of the I COPPE Scale. Journal of Community Psychology, 43(2), 199–226.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21674
Romsa, K., Bremer, K. L., & Lewis, J. (2017). The evolution of student-faculty interactions:
What matters to millennial college students? The College Student Affairs Journal, 35, 85–
99. https://doi.org/10.1353/csj.2017.0015
Samhat, N. (n.d.). White Paper #2: The importance of the physical campus and creating an
enriching campus environment. Wofford College. https://www.wofford.edu/about/office-
of-the-president/essays-papers-speeches/making-an-informed-decision/white-paper-2
Sollitto, M., Johnson, Z. D., & Myers, S. A. (2013). Students’ Perceptions of College Classroom
Connectedness, Assimilation, and Peer Relationships, Communication Education.
Communication Education, 62, 318–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2013.788726
Supiano, B. (2018). How Colleges Can Cultivate Students ’ Sense of Belonging.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-Colleges-Can-Cultivate/243123
Swenson-Goguen, L. M., Hiester, M. A., & Nordstrom, A. H. (2010). Associations among peer
relationships, academic achievement, and persistence in college. Journal of College
Student Retention, 12, 319–337. https://doi.org/10.2190/CS.12.3.d

113
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research.
Review of Educational Research, 45, 89–125.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543045001089
Tinto, V. (2017). Reflections on student persistence. Student Success, 8(2), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.5204/ssj.v8i2.376
University of Hawaii at Hilo. (2020, November 20). Message from UH President Lassner: UH to
continue mostly online for spring 2021 semester [blog post].
https://hilo.hawaii.edu/chancellor/stories/2020/11/20/lassner-online-spring-2021-
semester/
University of Hawaiʻi at Manoa. (2019). Fall 2019 Tuition & fees.
https://manoa.hawaii.edu/records/tuition_fees/fall_2019.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2017). Quick facts Hawaii.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/HI/INC910217#INC910217
U.S. News & World Report. (2018). Affordability rankings. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-
states/rankings/opportunity/affordability
Webber, K. L., Bauer Krylow, R., & Zhang, Q. (2013). Does Involvement Really Matter?
Indicators of College Student Success and Satisfaction. Journal of College Student
Development, 54, 591–611. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2013.0090
Wiseman, J., & Brasher, K. (2008). Community Wellbeing in an Unwell World: Trends,
Challenges, and Possibilities. Journal of Public Health Policy, (29), 353–366.
White, S. C. (2015). Relational wellbeing: A theoretical and operational approach. Bath Papers
in International Development and Wellbeing, 43.

114
Willie, M. (2012). Taxing and tuition: A legislative solution to growing endowments and the
rising costs of a college degree. Brigham Young University Law Review, 5, 1665–1704.
WHO Timeline - COVID-19. (2020, April 27). World Health Organization.
https://www.who.int/news/item/27-04-2020-who-timeline---covid-19

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This qualitative study sought to explore how student well-being and experiencing a sense of belonging impact persistence among commuter community college students in Hawai’i. Well-being was defined and evaluated by utilizing Prilleltensky’s model of well-being. Sense of belonging was assessed through the lens of Tinto’s model of student retention. Eight students were selected to participate in this study. Participant interviews were conducted by utilizing a standardized open-ended interview format directed by an interview protocol. Based on the results, the findings were categorized into four themesㅡthe impact of college, personal life, and work on well-being, the utility of well-being support systems, the importance of sense of belonging on campus, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study offers three recommendations for practice and suggestions for future research that support persistence among commuter community college students.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Latinx commuter students who have persisted and their sense of belonging

PDF

Non-academic factors affecting sense of belonging in first year commuter students at a four-year Hispanic serving institution

PDF

The impact of college success program on first generation college students in their preparation for college

PDF

U.S. Filipinos in higher education: sense of belonging, validation, well-being, and campus culture as predictors of GPA and intent to persist

PDF

Relationships between a community college student’s sense of belonging and student services engagement with completion of transfer gateway courses and persistence

PDF

Institutional support of FGLI undergraduates’ sense of belonging and persistence

PDF

A critical worldview: understanding identity and sense of belonging of underrepresented students' participation in study abroad

PDF

An exploration of the relationship of awareness and use of student services to sense of belonging, overall satisfaction with institution, and intent to persist to degree completion among internat...

PDF

Developing a sense of belonging and persistence through mentoring for first-generation students

PDF

Mama learns: examining factors that influence intent to persist in student mothers

PDF

Understanding Filipino student sense of belonging in a Hawaiʻi public school

PDF

When parents become students: An examination of experiences, needs, and opportunities which contribute to student parent engagement in community college

PDF

The Relationship Between Institutional Marketing and Communications and Black Student Intent to Persist in Private Universities

PDF

What makes a house a home: factors of influence for Black students' sense of belonging at a predominately White institution

PDF

The swirl world: sense of belonging of Black multiracial identifying students at a predominantly white institution

PDF

Black male experience on a community college campus: a study on sense of belonging

PDF

Advising and acculturation variables as predictors of satisfaction, sense of belonging, and persistence among international undergraduates

PDF

Understanding indigenous ʻike: the impact on sense of belonging and local identity on Hawaiʻi’s students

PDF

Students’ sense of belonging: college student and staff perspectives during COVID-19

PDF

A new lens to examine and increase sense of belonging of Latin* students from postsecondary institutions in the midwestern United States

Asset Metadata

Creator Rho, Chris (author)

Core Title Well-being, sense of belonging, and persistence among commuter college students in Hawai’i

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2021-12

Publication Date 11/01/2021

Defense Date 10/30/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag community college students,commuter students,Hawai'i,OAI-PMH Harvest,persistence,sense of belonging,well-being

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Green, Alan (committee chair), Baldemor, Vince (committee member), Tambascia, Tracy (committee member)

Creator Email crho@usc.edu,crho2003@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC16344595

Unique identifier UC16344595

Legacy Identifier etd-RhoChris-10186

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Rho, Chris

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu