Close
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Designing college transition programs for low-income, first-generation commuter students
(USC Thesis Other)
Designing college transition programs for low-income, first-generation commuter students
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Designing College Transition Programs for Low-income, First-generation Commuter Students
by
Tzoler Oukayan-Sagherian
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
December, 2020
© Copyright by Tzoler Oukayan-Sagherian 2020
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Tzoler Oukayan-Sagherian certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Dr. Patricia E. Tobey
Dr. Rosemary Perez
Dr. Adrianna Kezar, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2020
iv
Abstract
This study sought to understand how college transition programs can be designed to play a
critical role in the development of sense of belonging for first-generation, low-income commuter
students. First-generation, low-income students are faced with significant challenges in their
pursuit of post-secondary education. These challenges are elevated further when the student is
commuting to school. A qualitative research design was used to explore the elements of college
transition programs designed for this student population through the Thompson Learning
Scholars program within the University of Nebraska. This study specifically looked at how
college transitions program can be uniquely designed to support the commuter student
experience at the University of Nebraska, Omaha campus. Approximately 27 interviews and
three years of program documents were analyzed. Study results confirmed that through the
development for community spaces, intentional programing and support, comprehensive college
transition programs can support the development of sense of belonging for the commuter student.
v
Dedication
To all the amazing mentors that guided me through the journey of a first-generation, low-income
student. It is what helped shaped my life’s work. Thank you for challenging me in all walks of
life and thank you for always helping me see what I could not.
vi
Acknowledgements
This dissertation would not have been possible without my experience as a low-income
first-generation student at Glendale Community College. I am grateful to my students, peers and
advisors who helped guide my path in higher education. I am grateful that I do for students what
you did for me in during a very critical time in my life.
I am deeply indebted to my family and friends who have always supported my goals, no
matter what the scale. Thank you for your continuous support and belief, and always cheering
me on. Specifically, my Nene and Haigan tantig who had the pressure on from day one, a natural
expectation that this would happen. I got through this thinking of both of you. I had to make you
proud!
To my mom, who sacrificed much of her life to ensure I was on the right path. Thank
you mom. And to Alan, thank you for your continued patience throughout the last several years.
Thank you for supporting this chapter in my life, though it was not always easy. I will always be
grateful for the push to peruse this journey.
And finally, to my committee chair, Dr. Adrianna Kezar, and my dissertation team.
Thank you for the regular check-ins, pushes, and guidance. It was an honor to work with you all.
vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xii
List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... xiii
Chapter One: Overview of the Study ...............................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................................1
Commuter Students ........................................................................................................2
Student’s First-Year Experience ....................................................................................3
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................4
Significance of the Study .....................................................................................................6
Organization of the Study ....................................................................................................7
Chapter Two: Literature Review .....................................................................................................8
First-Generation College Students .......................................................................................8
Challenges for First-Generation Commuter Students ........................................................10
Balancing Multiple Responsibilities ............................................................................11
Part-Time Enrollment ..................................................................................................13
College Adjustment .....................................................................................................15
Summary ......................................................................................................................17
College Transition Programs .............................................................................................18
New Student Orientation..............................................................................................18
viii
Summer Bridge ............................................................................................................19
Learning Communities.................................................................................................19
First-Year Seminar .......................................................................................................20
Core Components of Transition Programs ..................................................................21
Customizing First-Year Programs ...............................................................................24
Sense of Belonging as a Theoretical Framework ..............................................................25
Sense of Belonging Among First-Generation Students ...............................................25
Sense of Belonging and Persistence ............................................................................26
Sense of Belonging as a Challenge for First-Generation Students ..............................27
Supporting Development and Sense of Belonging ......................................................27
Chapter Three: Research Methodology .........................................................................................30
Overall Design ...................................................................................................................30
Case Studies .................................................................................................................32
Site Selection ...............................................................................................................33
Data Source ..................................................................................................................36
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................39
Role and Trustworthiness of the Researcher .....................................................................40
Limitations .........................................................................................................................41
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................41
Chapter Four: Findings ..................................................................................................................42
Developing Sense of Belonging Through Community Spaces..........................................43
Community Space ........................................................................................................44
Formal Use of Space ....................................................................................................46
ix
Informal Space: Home .................................................................................................47
Importance of Scheduling Programs for Commuter Students ...........................................49
Scheduling Events ........................................................................................................50
Monthly Dinners ..........................................................................................................50
Strategic Scheduling of Programs that Promotes the Inclusion of Family ..................51
Intentional Programming and Support ...............................................................................53
Embedded Mentors ......................................................................................................53
Shared Courses.............................................................................................................54
Autobio Class ...............................................................................................................54
Intentional Support.......................................................................................................57
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................60
Chapter Five: Discussion and Conclusion .....................................................................................62
Summary of Findings .........................................................................................................63
Developing Sense of Belonging Through Community Spaces....................................63
Successfully Scheduling Program for Commuter Students .........................................64
Intentional Programming and Support .........................................................................65
Recommendations for Practice ..........................................................................................67
Identifying a Space ......................................................................................................67
Embedded Programs and Services ...............................................................................68
Mentorship ...................................................................................................................69
Recommendations for Future Research .............................................................................69
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................71
References ......................................................................................................................................73
x
Appendix A: Definitions of Key Terms .........................................................................................86
xi
List of Tables
Table 1 Estimated Interviews Per Campus ....................................................................................38
Table 2 UNO Events Schedule for Commuter Students ................................................................50
Table 3 Observation Notes from Monthly Collaborative Meeting ................................................59
Appendix A: Definitions of Key Terms………………………………………………………….86
xii
List of Figures
Figure 1 Diagram of Comprehensive College Transition Program Components ..........................35
xiii
List of Abbreviations
FYE First-Year Experience
GPA Grade Point Average
PAL Peer Advisor Leads
POC Point of Contact
TSLC William H. Thompson Scholars Learning Community
UNK University of Nebraska, Kearney
UNL University of Nebraska, Lincoln
UNO University of Nebraska, Omaha
1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
One of the most challenging decisions I had to make as a young 17-year-old was deciding
to go to college. College was not discussed at home, and I did not know the options that may
have been available to me early enough to plan and make such decisions. As a first-generation,
low-income college student, I experienced many challenges and obstacles both prior to making
the decision to go to college and when I enrolled. I recall discussions of college in high school,
peers signing up for the PSATs and tutors they had for SATs, but none of it really made sense
until my senior year when someone asked, “What are you doing next year?” It was one of those
moments where I had no response and felt ashamed. Starting college was a challenge. I made the
decision to start at my local community college because (a) I was not prepared to apply to a four-
year university, (b) the application fees were expensive, (c) I could not move away as I supported
my single mom and younger sister with household responsibilities, and (d) I could not afford it.
If I was going to college, it had to be the community college where I could commute and
continue to help support my family working 30 hours a week. My first year in college was the
toughest. I had to learn my way around and figure out what classes I needed to take. I did not
know what my purpose was. Buying books that were very expensive was scary. I had to use my
mom’s credit card to pay for my classes because I did not know about financial aid or other
support services. Lastly, I was in an environment where I no longer knew everyone. The
environment was intimidating and emotionally challenging. Every day, I wondered if I made the
right decision and if I could do it. Did I belong in college?
Statement of the Problem
The number of undergraduate students in postsecondary education is steadily growing. In
2016–2017, 10.8 million students were enrolled in 4-year institutions, and 6.1 million in 2-year
2
institutions (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2018). That year, total undergraduate
enrollment reached 16.9 million students. This number is expected to increase by an additional
3% by 2027 (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2018). With this, institutions of higher
education are seeing an increase in student diversity. In fall 2016, 58% of students in public 4-
year institutions were White, 12% were Black, 18% were Hispanic, and 7% were Asian. These
numbers shifted slightly in public 2-year institutions: 51% White, 25% Hispanic, 14% Black, and
6% Asian (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2018). Two-year campuses enroll a higher
percentage of ethnic minority students. Though post-secondary institutions are seeing an increase
in student diversity, the number of underrepresented students completing a degree or certificate
remains low compared to that of their peers (Engle & Tinto, 2008; Lotkowski et al., 2004).
Underrepresented students include first-generation, ethnic minority, low-income, students with
disabilities, foster youth, veterans, non-native English speakers, and students with dependent
children. Research also suggests that underrepresented students may share several of these
characteristics. For example, first-generation students are often low-income, commuters, and
non-native English speakers. This paper will focus on low-income, first-generation students.
Commuter Students
Almost 85% of undergraduates are commuter students (Jacoby, 2014; National Center for
Education Statistics, 2014b). Close to half (44%) are over age 24 (Jacoby, 2014; Jacoby &
Garland, 2004). Commuter students do not reside in university housing and must take public
transportation, private vehicles, or walk to school (Jacoby, 2014; Newbold, 2015). Commuter
students may live at home with parents, live in off-campus rental housing near or away from
campus, or be non-traditionally aged part-time students with careers (Jacoby, 2014; Jacoby &
Garland, 2004). The research on commuter students indicates that they will likely come from low
3
socioeconomic status backgrounds and/or be first-generation (Dugan et al., 2008; Jacoby &
Garland, 2004; Kuh et al., 2001; Martin & Kilgo, 2015; Newbold et al., 2011; Schuchman,
1974). Much of the earlier research on commuter students identified this group as needing extra
guidance to develop and establish identity and self-esteem (Schuchman, 1974). Similarly, Astin’s
(2001) work identifies implications for commuter students’ engagement and degree completion.
A student’s psychological and physical time invested in a college environment plays a
significant role in their satisfaction with the institution and their academic and personal
development (Astin, 2001). Studies reflect a strong correlation between living on campus and
engagement, integration, persistence among first-year students (Ishitani & Reid, 2015; Pascarella
& Terenzini, 1991). Most commuter students do not have this experience. Being a commuter
student is related to the many identities a student balances. As stated above, many commuter
students are non-traditionally aged, have dependents, are providers in the home, attend school
part-time, and are likely from low-income households. Due to these factors, it is not easy for
them to integrate, engage, and persist. For many of these students, earning a college degree must
fit into their existing life, or it may be impossible (Newbold et al., 2011). The motivation and
purpose for commuter students are different from those of some of their peers. According to
Martin and Kilgo (2015), higher education institutions must create environments that support
commuting students.
Student’s First-Year Experience
The first year of college is an important transition for all students. Most students
underestimate the amount of time necessary to prepare for classes, the realities of moving in with
strangers, or how to balance the social and academic demands of college (Ward et al., 2012).
Due to such challenges, the first year has the most significant percentage of student departures
4
(Tinto, 2007). Astin (1999) defines the importance of involvement in a student’s higher
education experience. Being committed, engaged, partakes in, or is attached to a form of
involvement, will support students’ persistence (Astin, 1999), which is critical for a student’s
first year in college. Developing ways to keep students motivated and increase the time and
energy they put into being students will support their persistence. An environment in which
students feel they have value will also increase their commitment. These points are most relevant
for first-generation college students. Programs Strategically designed to focus on the student’s
integration in the first year of college will be critical (Astin, 1999; Engle & Tinto, 2008).
Purpose of the Study
Many post-secondary institutions have programs to support students in their transition
and acclimation to college. These programs have varying designs that include pre-intervention
programming, summer bridge programs, cohort models in learning communities, and first-year
experience (FYE) models. Due to the varied and extensive needs of first-generation college
students, such programs are not cookie-cutter designs that will work across all colleges and
universities.
Institutions need to be very intentional in meeting their students’ needs and tailoring such
programs to support diverse student populations (Ward et al., 2012). Such programs allow
students to engage beyond the curriculum and examine their academic and personal role in a
small cohort of peers. In their work with commuter students. Jacoby and Garland (2004) identify
first-year programs as a positive way of engaging commuter students. They discuss how such
programs can be designed to support this student population. What we can do is provide
programs designed to be student-ready. Through FYE models, colleges can focus on a student’s
first year, monitor their progress, provide needed support, increase engagement, and create a
5
culture of success. This culture will be especially important for low-income, first-generation
commuter students.
The Susan T. Buffett Foundation sponsors The William H. Thompson Scholars Learning
Community (TSLC) to provide scholarships to first-generation, low-income college students.
The program is designed to help students transition to one of three campuses at the University of
Nebraska: Omaha, Kearney, and Lincoln. The program provides students a comprehensive
transition program supported through living and learning communities at each campus. The
program provides strategically sequenced courses in a cohort model that also requires several
coordinated activities and provides opportunities for engagement with faculty and peers (The
Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, n.d.). The program’s mission is to provide first-generation,
low-income students a positive and rich learning environment into which they can integrate
smoothly and succeed.
Staff members are intentionally identified and trained to connect and engage with the
students. The program supports scholars through their first and second year of college through
specialized programming and services. The TSLC FYE Seminar is embedded in every scholar’s
first-year curriculum. Along with their regular courses, students take a first-year seminar to
develop the skills to integrate into the college environment. They develop study skills, time-
management, goal setting, leadership skills, academic and social integration, habits, and
behaviors that support their transition. This study examined the TSLC FYE program and student
experience by addressing the following questions:
1. How does the TSLC program develop a sense of belonging for first-generation, low-
income commuter students?
6
2. How does the UNO TSLC program staff describe designing the program to shape a
sense of belonging for first-generation, low-income commuter students when
compared to more traditional college transition programs (i.e., UNK)?
First-generation college students are less likely to persist in their first year and less likely
to earn a degree than their peers. Higher education institutions need to identify these students,
recognize their unique needs, and put programs in place to assist in their degree attainment
(Ward et al., 2012). This study examined how college and university transition programs can be
designed to serve diverse student populations in higher education. The commuter student
experience is very different from that of the residential student. This study sought to understand
how programs can be tailored to serve all students to support a sense of belonging and
persistence to degree attainment.
Colleges and universities are seeing a sustained increase in first-generation college
student enrollment and gaps in their persistence. Federal and state governments allocate funding
to close these achievement gaps through programs such as FYE. FYE programs need to be
student-ready. With the diversity increasing on college campuses, no single FYE program is
sufficient. Such programs need to meet students’ needs. Colleges need to be student-ready, not
the other way around.
Significance of the Study
Only one-third of first-generation college students enrolled in 4-year institutions earn a
degree (Choy, 2001; Demetrious et al., 2017; Engle & Tinto, 2008). With their increasing
numbers in higher education, institutions must provide them support to increase their retention
and degree attainment. The challenge most institutions face is identifying these students (Ward et
al., 2012). If we do not begin to understand this student group, we are in danger of losing them.
7
First-generation students are high-risk and have specific challenges and needs (Clauss-Ehlers &
Wibrowski, 2007; Pascarella et al., 2004; Ward et al., 2012). With student diversity growing on
college campuses, customizing such programs is critical.
Organization of the Study
The sense of belonging theory provided a conceptual framework on the impact of
programs that can support first-generation students in their transition to college and the need for
college knowledge. Chapter Two will further explore the impact of college transition programs
through the lens of the first-generation commuter students and the implications of such programs
as institutional agents that can develop a student’s sense of belonging as they navigate higher
education challenges. Chapter Three will share the methodology utilized in this study, including
sample population, site, methods used, and data collected.
8
Chapter Two: Literature Review
This study seeks to gain a greater understanding of low-income, first-generation
commuter students and their college transition. The study examined how FYE programs can be
designed to support their developing a sense of belonging and college knowledge. I drew on the
literature on sense of belonging, college knowledge, commuter students in higher education, and
FYE program development. The literature review begins by identifying the barriers first-
generation, low-income students experience in their transition to college. I will then discuss the
barriers for first-generation students as exacerbated when the student is a commuter. Then, I will
introduce the importance of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs in developing a student’s sense of
belonging in college, how this is a challenge for first-generation students, and how it is
especially challenging for commuter students. The chapter then will outline the need for
intentionally designed programs that can support first-generation, low-income commuter
students, looking at various program models for first-year transitions. If designed properly,
college transition programs can help students develop a sense of belonging at their institution.
First-Generation College Students
As the number of first-generation college students in higher education continues to grow,
so does the research on this population (Pascarella et al., 2004). The research defines first-
generation college students as individuals whose parents did not complete, enroll in, or
participate in post-secondary education (Castellanos & Gloria, 2007; Choy, 2001; Clauss-Ehlers
& Wibrowski, 2007; National Center for Educational Statistics, 2018; Pascarella et al., 2004;
Ward et al., 2012). These studies reflect that most first-generation students come from low-
income households, are non-traditional aged students, and are students of ethnic minority
backgrounds (Castellanos & Gloria, 2007; Choy, 2001; Engle & Tinto, 2008; Ward et al., 2012).
9
In this study, first-generation students are defined as individuals whose parents did not attain a
college degree in the United States.
First-generation students face significant challenges that affect persistence and degree
attainment as compared to their peers. For students whose parents have a college degree, there is
a strong expectation of attending college (Choy, 2001). Early on, these students know the need
for honors high school courses, preparing for and taking the SAT/ACT, and building a resume of
activities and involvement. This is not the case for first-generation college students. These
students decide to attend college later in high school and have challenges navigating the
application and enrollment process (Choy, 2001; Terenzini et al., 1996; Ward et al., 2012).
Because first-generation students do not have members in their support group with
college experience, they have a more difficult time navigating the higher education system.
While enrollment is derailed for some (Stitt & Winsor, 2014), many of these students have a hard
time integrating during the first year (Engle & Tinto, 2008). Choy (2001) explains that, as a
group, these students begin college significantly underprepared. Most have not taken the
appropriate high school classes to prepare them for the rigor of college-level work. This leaves
them significantly underprepared compared to their peers (Choy, 2001; Engle & Tinto, 2008). If
they do not feel they can handle academic rigor or have the right study skills, they will be less
confident in their ability to succeed. This can be a significant challenge in the first-year
transition. The transition to college requires much preparation, understanding, and support, all of
which these students lack (Terenzini et al., 1996; Ward et al., 2012).
For first-generation students from low-income households, their obligation to the home
and family is much greater (Pike & Kuh, 2005; Terenzini et al., 1996; Ward et al., 2012). This
presents additional challenges. If they need to support themselves financially, these students
10
balance multiple obligations outside of school, including full-time work and family (Engle &
Tinto, 2008; Nunez et al., 1998; Ward et al., 2012). Because of this disposition, they are likely to
be commuter students and more likely enroll part-time students, affecting college experience
(Engle & Tinto, 2008; Ward et al., 2012).
The factors discussed above can pose significant challenges to academic and social
integration. Working off-campus and commuting allows little, if any, time to engage on campus.
As studies show, students who are involved in campus activities and programs, utilize on-
campus academic support services, visit the library, or interact with faculty and peers outside of
class are more likely to persist (Astin, 1999; Cabrera et al., 1992; Engle & Tinto, 2008;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Tinto, 1993). Low-income, first-generation students who commute
to campus are not likely to have these college experiences. The need to work to support
themselves and their families hinders their college student identity. This leaves them four times
more likely to leave after their first year in college than their peers (Engle & Tinto, 2008).
Challenges for First-Generation Commuter Students
Some first-generation college students must decide between attending college or
supporting their families by going directly into the workforce. Those who decide to attend
college have distinct and significant disadvantages in the college transition. Commuting
magnifies these challenges.
Over 80% of students in post-secondary institutions are commuters (Gianoutsos &
Rosser, 2014; Jacoby & Garland, 2004). Though there are many reasons a student may commute,
their college experience is very different from that of their non-commuter peers (Jacoby &
Garland, 2004; Pascarella, 1984). Though there is limited research on commuter students’
experience, we do know that there is a strong correlation between being a first-generation student
11
and a commuter student (Choy, 2001; Jacoby & Garland, 2004; Wilmes & Quade, 1986).
Commuter students have specific challenges that lead to lower persistence and higher dropout
rates in their first year (Jacoby & Garland, 2004; Pascarella et al., 2004; Wilmes & Quade,
1986). These include balancing multiple responsibilities outside of their student identity, the
likelihood of being a part-time student, and a lack of college preparedness that challenges the
adjustment to college.
Balancing Multiple Responsibilities
Due to their demographic disposition, first-generation students are likely commuter
students who balance family, work, and school (Jacoby, 2014; Jacoby & Garland, 2004;
Schuchman, 1974). These students may also come from low-income minority backgrounds and
receive little financial support from their families. They are also more likely to financial
providers of their households. The first-generation commuter student is likely to have dependent
children, making it even more difficult to balance the student identity (Jacoby & Garland, 2004;
Schuchman, 1974).
Most support for commuter students comes from their non-academic lives: parents,
friends, spouses, and co-workers. (Schuchman, 1974). In the case of first-generation students,
that social support network may not help them balance the student identity. In a study of
undergraduate student profiles in 2011–2012, Burlison (2015) reports that 60% of students who
lived off campus were over the age of 30, married, or worked full-time. Such dispositions make
it more challenging for commuter students to allow their student identity to take precedence over
work and family obligations. Families of first-generation students who commute might not
understand why students need to spend time on campus or need to spend time studying. Students
are expected to continue their roles as family members, caretakers, and providers. For this
12
student group, the pursuit of a degree must fit into their life, or it will be unsustainable
(Schuchman, 1974). Due to the balancing of these multiple identities, first-generation students
who commute to campus cannot fully make the transition into the role of student (Jacoby, 2014).
They are less academically engaged and less able to participate in high-impact practices known
to support student success (Stebleton & Soria, 2012). This, in turn, leads them to drop out at
higher rates than their non-commuter peers.
In a study of 14,550 students across six large public universities, Stebleton and Soria
(2012) found that, compared to their peers, first-generation students’ largest challenge was
balancing multiple responsibilities, including work and family. Their inability to focus on the
student self leads to isolation and alienation when they leave campus (Stebleton & Soria, 2012).
In a different study at a mid-sized southwestern state university, Mehta et al. (2011)
administered a survey to 452 students on the difference between first-generation students and
their peers regarding financial and time demands, family income and student contribution, hours
worked per week, commute status, and other topics. The researchers found that first-generation
students had significantly lower family incomes and worked to provide support (Mehta et al.,
2011). Forty-two percent reported working more than 20 hours per week. There is a significantly
greater demand for their time outside of school than in school compared to their peers. This led
to less involvement on-campus as well as to a lack of engagement with peers and college
employees. The students in this study did not feel they had enough time in their already full day
(Mehta et al., 2011).
In a study on commuter students’ lifestyle challenges, Newbold (2015) similarly
identified the challenge of time demands of balancing of employment and personal lives. In most
cases, the student identity is added to existing responsibilities, making time spent on academic
13
responsibilities secondary. The student had an established social circle that included family
responsibilities and employment before enrolling in college, leaving little room for the student
identity to develop. These students often negotiate what will take up their time each day.
Studying may become a responsibility they add to all their other ones.
At a further education college in Scotland, Carney et al. (2005) found most of the
students combined family and work commitments with their schooling. The students in this study
spent 59 to 71 hours balancing these responsibilities (Carney et al., 2005). Very few students
(14% and 17%) reported that their studies were more important than their jobs (Carney et al.,
2005). Whether the students attended full-time or part-time, they were constantly interpreting
options and opportunities and strategically devising ways to do both. For some of these students,
conflicting priorities caused ongoing stress and difficulty.
Part-Time Enrollment
First-generation commuter students are more likely to be full-time employees and part-
time students. Burlison (2015) found that 91% of the students who lived off campus worked full-
time, making it challenging for them to enroll full-time. Part-time enrollment increases a
student’s risk of dropping out (Lee, 2018). Compared to their peers, first-generation students take
fewer courses and spend fewer hours on campus (Engle & Tinto, 2008; Pascarella et al., 2004).
Because they are likely juggling full-time work, they spend less time on campus connecting with
faculty and peers. Relationships with faculty and peers play an important role in a student’s
ability to succeed in college. Such interactions can foster interpersonal connections between the
student and the institution (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991).
In a study of part-time adult learners, Lundberg (2003) discussed the challenges in this
student population’s connection with the campus. Their need to enroll part-time leaves minimal
14
opportunity for on-campus engagement (Lundberg, 2003). Lundberg examined 4,644
undergraduate students using the College Student Experience Questionnaire, which was drawn
from a larger data set of approximately 20,000 students across 20 institutions. The study found
that high-quality relationships with peers and campus personnel better supported learning. Given
the part-time enrollment status, this relationship development is a significant challenge for part-
time commuter student. This disposition decreased the interaction and opportunity for integration
to the institution and their peers, which harmed their learning (Lundberg, 2003).
Similarly, in a study of part-time students in a Canadian institution, Lee (2018) discussed
academic and social integration challenges for students enrolled part-time. Using Tinto’s (1987)
work on student retention, Lee discussed the value of time spent on campus and its correlation to
a student’s ability to connect to an institution. This is a great challenge for part-time students.
According to Lee, many part-time students are returning to higher education or have never
experienced the rigor of college-level work. There are both fear and anxiety in becoming a
student, particularly a full-time student. In this quantitative study of 875 part-time students,
82.9% stated that balancing personal commitment and schoolwork was the most significant
challenge.
Part-time enrollment means spending less time on campus and limiting a sense of
connectedness to the campus. A third (29.26%) of the students in Lee’s (2018) study stated they
did not feel like they belonged at the college. According to them, though they desired to connect
with campus members, doing so required daily time negotiation (Lee, 2018). They had a more
difficult time feeling part of the college culture, which can lead to isolation (Lee, 2018). Lee
found part-time students need flexible support services, including advisors with flexible hours,
workshops on personal and academic development, flexible course offerings, services that target
15
their needs, a learning space, and opportunities for social engagement with faculty, staff, and
peers. In all, 73.17% of the respondents noted a need to feel connected to the college, which is
challenging to do with traditional engagement programs.
Being a part-time student presents several challenges in connecting with the institution
and its people. Interacting with peers and faculty provide valuable engagement and opportunities
for students. Due to responsibilities associated with being first-generation, part-time enrollment
may be the student’s only option. Because of this, first-generation students who commute to
campus take longer to complete college and are more likely to leave college at the end of their
first year (Pascarella et al., 2004).
College Adjustment
Research shows that a student’s integration on campus will play a central role in their
persistence (Engle & Tinto, 2008; Gianoutsos & Rosser, 2014; Pascarella, 1984; Pike & Kuh,
2005). For instance, students who reside on a college campus are more engaged and integrated
within the institution (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). They become part of the campus
community and learn the ways of college faster than those who commute. Because they live on
campus, they are regularly exposed to academic and student support services and are more likely
to access such resources. A student’s ability to adjust to the college environment and develop a
sense of connectedness is a significant challenge for first-generation commuter students (Wilmes
& Quade, 1986). As discussed earlier, these students transition to college less academically
prepared than their peers and with a minimal support system (Ward et al., 2012).They are less
likely to spend time on campus, interact with classmates and faculty, and less likely than their
peers to engage outside of class (Pike & Kuh, 2005; Pascarella, 1984; Pascarella et al., 2004).
16
With competing demands, they have more difficulty adjusting to the college environment and
integrating into the campus culture.
In their work on first-generation students’ academic success and adjustment, Kim et al.
(2018) discussed transition and adjustment to college as critical to success. These students lack
experience-based knowledge from parents or social support networks, making college
adjustment more challenging (Kim et al., 2018). College expectations, study skills, and time-
management are all factors in the ability to adjust. Without prior knowledge or expectation, these
become barriers. It is more difficult to access academic resources and knowledge when a student
does not fully integrate into the college environment.
In a different study on first-generation students, Stebleton and Soria (2012) discussed
academic barriers that affect their college adjustment. Stebleton and Soria administered the
Student Experience in the Research University survey to 145,150 students at six public
universities. First-generation college students had significantly higher rates of academic barriers
that affected their adjustment to college. They reported higher rates of stress and anxiety due to
competing responsibilities and challenges with math and English preparedness, study skills, and
feelings of depression, stress, and anxiety (Stebleton & Soria, 2012). These factors all influence
students’ ability to adjust to the new environment and feel that they can succeed in college.
For most commuter students, school is a drop-in and drop-out process. Commuting
changes their college experience. They are less likely to know about support programs and
services and less likely to access them (Cunningham & Leegwater, 2011). Attending class is the
only form of connection most commuter students have with the institution. Therefore, the time
that a student spends in class is critical to their academic integration and success. Developing
positive relationships with faculty in the formal setting of a classroom will be important. For
17
first-generation college students, this is not an easy task. For many of these students, believing
they are capable of handling academia is a challenge. The responsibility of alleviating such
challenges is left to faculty to recognize and support. Creating a class where both formal and
informal interaction takes place will be critical for these students. When the only college
connection they have is in a classroom, an environment that requires engagement and
socialization becomes valuable. Requiring students to work in pairs or create study groups can
provide a platform for academic peer interactions. This academic interaction can then lead to
social interaction with more informal support for commuter students. Through reciprocal peer
relationships, students can gain confidence in their ability to be college students (Vaccaro et al.,
2015).
Summary
First-generation college students who commute are likely to enroll part-time and start
college with minimal social or financial support. They spend very little time on campus and may
know very little about their college campus and the support programs that can guide their first
year. They have fewer opportunities to engage with faculty and peers, creating more barriers than
their peers face. Their lack of integration prevents an adequate sense of belonging at their
institution. These challenges have negative implications for students’ grade point averages and
their persistence to graduation (Newbold, 2015). As commuters, these students may feel more
like guests than members of the campus community (Burlison, 2015; Jacoby & Garland, 2004).
They are more likely to stop-out (Engle & Tinto, 2008; Pike & Kuh, 2005). In the next section, I
will discuss the important role college transition programs play in a student’s experience and
integration to college, specifically for first-generation college students. The development of such
programs in its various components can support student success.
18
College Transition Programs
Student retention, particularly in the first year, is a challenge at most college campuses.
First-year transition programs and services have been developed to alleviate retention challenges.
The programs have been around for several decades at both 2-year and 4-year institution.
Though the underlying principles of transition are the same, programs vary in size, degree, and
delivery. Such programs’ ultimate goal is to increase student retention from semester to
semester, increase their preparedness beyond their first courses, build relationships and
community, and provide support and resources to achieve these (Cornell & Mosley, 2006;
Goodman & Pascarella, 2006; Hunter, 2006). In his work on retention, Tinto (1999) argues that
institutions need to evaluate the students’ challenges and their circumstances and the
environment we built for them to succeed in. College presents a foreign set of norms for most
students, especially first-generation students (Hunter, 2006). The space we develop and provide
students, particularly in their first year, can play a critical role in their persistence. The following
sections describe four types of transition programs.
New Student Orientation
Orientation programs vary across institutions. Some last a few hours, while others may
take a few days. Some institutions require orientation while others make it optional. They
provide an opportunity for institutions to help start the students’ new journey and adjustment to
college. College orientations can provide important information regarding campus resources,
academic support services, and they may engage students before they start classes. Results of the
National Survey of Student Engagement (2005) showed that students who attended a new
student orientation program more easily transitioned to the institution, felt more supported at the
19
campus, mage greater gains in the first year, and were more satisfied with their college
experience.
Summer Bridge
Summer bridge programs vary in purpose, students served, and programs offered. Some
are specially designed to target low-income, first-generation students, while others provide a
supportive transition for students entering particular disciplines (Kezar, 2000). During summer
bridge students build core skills and gain the tools they will need in their first year, such as study
skills and strategies, time-management, and knowledge about support services. These programs
also allow underprepared students to take remedial courses to catch up to college-level course
work (Kezar, 2000; Sablan & Tierney, 2014). These programs’ goal is to assist students in the
transition to college personally, academically, and socially (Sablan & Tierney, 2014). This
allows students to build confidence in college-level work, provides access to faculty, students,
and staff, and builds a sense of belonging at the college before the fall semester starts (Sablan &
Tierney, 2014).
Learning Communities
Through small, purposeful groups (learning communities), colleges and universities can
develop the setting and environment necessary to support the first-year experience (Levine,
1999). By design, learning communities bring students and faculty together within disciplines
(Levine, 1999). Through learning communities, classes are blocked purposely and linked,
students are in cohorts, and special support services and faculty are in place to support them. The
learning communities can change how the curriculum is taught and how students learn (Tinto,
1999). Learning communities also support social integration for first-year students. Because
students take courses as a cohort, they integrate socially with peers. Learning happens in small,
20
intimate settings, and students foster social relationships to support their personal and social
integration to the institution. Working in collaborative groups, students build relationships, build
study groups, and create a sense of responsibility to one another. Many learning communities
add service learning and volunteering and take students outside of the classroom in a more social
setting while still creating learning opportunities with their peers in a pedagogical model.
First-Year Seminar
One of the most common transition programs is the first-year seminar. Almost 95% of 4-
year institutions have a first-year (or freshman) seminar (Goodman & Pascarella, 2006). Their
purpose is to support persistence and academic achievement through positive social and
academic integration (Barefoot, 2001; Goodman & Pascarella, 2006). First-year seminars vary in
form and delivery, but they are designed to extend the college orientation into the full first
semester or year. They have intentionally designed curriculum, instructors, and supportive
environments that encourage success (Barefoot, 2001; Mayhew et al., 2016). Topics covered
include study skills, setting academic and personal goals, time-management skills, knowledge of
student support services, and academic support resources. They are designed to acclimate
students to the college environment (Porter & Swing, 2006).
Research has found many positive outcomes of first-year seminars. Goodman and
Pascarella (2006) found that students who participated in them experienced meaningful
engagement with faculty and developed social relationships with peers. Students were also more
likely to be involved in other campus activities and organizations and had higher levels of
commitment to the institution (Goodman & Pascarella, 2006).
First-year seminars provide students with key skills to develop college knowledge and
build a support network to succeed (Porter & Swing, 2006). After surveying students across 45
21
institutions, Porter and Swing (2006) found first-year seminars had a significant impact on a
student’s intent to persist. Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) found similar results among students
who completed a freshman seminar at the University of Maryland. Participants were 7% more
likely to return their second year. They were also more likely to graduate within 4 years than
those who did not participate (Goodman & Pascarella, 2006). Through multi-institutional studies,
Bers and Younger (2014) found that first-year seminars enhance students’ academic performance
and retention. In fact, some studies specify that such programs are positively correlated with
higher grade point averages and units completed (Bers & Younger, 2014).
Core Components of Transition Programs
Academic Advising
Advising is one of the most important components of student persistence and retention
(Engle & Lynch, 2011). Advising includes helping students declare a major and providing them
with a roadmap to get there. Academic advisors provide critical resources, information, and
access for students. This is especially true for first-generation students who do not have this prior
knowledge. In a study of various higher education institutions with high graduation rates of low-
income students, Engle and Lynch (2011) found that monitoring student progress through
various forms of advising was critical. Successful institutions had systems to track students’
progress and provide interventions when needed. These systems can include early alerts,
collaboration with faculty and advisors, and students’ commitments to meet with their advisors
regularly. Institutions with these expectations had higher rates of success (Engle & Lynch, 2011).
Intrusive advising is another successful tactic used in these programs. Intrusive advising requires
students to declare a major and regularly contact the advisor to ensure they are on track.
22
In another study of community colleges, academic advising took a case management
approach, where students were assigned specific advisors that stayed with them during their
tenure as students. The case management approach has high rates of course completion (Bers &
Younger, 2014). Without advisors’ support, students depend on information they think they
know or follow their peers on a possibly wrong path. Academic advisors play a critical role in
providing students with academic roadmaps, support, and college information to support them on
their journey. Academic advisors are carefully selected to best connect with the student. Support
services are uniquely designed for each student and their needs. Academic advisors meet with
students to develop trust and positive relations and are usually embedded throughout the FYE
program.
Support
Though academic support is critical for a student’s first year in college, social and
personal support are just as important. College transition programs can develop a student’s
personal and social integration to the campus. For many students, college is a new start with new
people in a new system of many unknowns. Through transition programs, social support, and a
sense of belonging can develop. For instance, in learning communities, classes purposely link
together students in a cohort in their first year (Tinto, 2012). This helps develop various forms of
social integration with peers. Not only is learning happening in small, intimate settings, but
students are fostering social relationships that will support their personal and social integration,
building a sense of belonging to the institution (Tinto, 2012). Working in collaborative groups,
students build relationships, build study groups, and create a shared responsibility to one another
in the process (Tinto, 2012).
23
Similarly, first-year seminars in FYE programs help provide personal support to students.
First-year seminars are intentionally designed curriculum, with intentionally identified
instructors and environments that create a supportive environment for students (Barefoot, 2001;
Mayhew et al., 2016). In such programs, students learn how to develop study skills, time-
management strategies, set academic and personal goals, learn about student support services,
financial resources, and so much more (Porter & Swing, 2006). These seminars help the student
build knowledge about college services and help them acclimate to the college environment
(Porter & Swing, 2006). The more a student knows, the more likely they are to persist and
succeed. In their study of institutional practices that support low-income students, Engle and
Lynch (2011) discussed the importance of bringing support programs to students. Students may
hear about programs, but they do not necessarily understand what they can do for them. Making
such services part of the experience in these programs can provide students more intrusive
support and access.
Involvement
Tinto’s theory on integrations plays an important role in an FYE program’s ability to
support students. As discussed earlier, a student’s social integration has positive effects on their
satisfaction with the institution (Strayhorn, 2012). Hurtado and Carter (1997) examined
participation in college activities and campus group membership as factors in students’
attachment to the institution. Groups can include clubs, sororities, fraternities, learning
communities, and cultural affiliations. Building connections with peers and faculty will make a
difference in a student’s commitment to an institution (Hoffman et al., 2002). FYE programs can
develop this through their various designs.
24
Learning
Students who feel they are capable and are learning are have increased motivation. Every
student needs to feel a sense of academic belonging to the campus. They have earned their way
to college and are an important part of the institution. Providing space for innovative and
collaborative learning will be critical to students’ experience. Learning needs to be involving, but
for most first-year students, learning starts in isolation. Tinto (2012) discussed the value of
expectations in relation to student performance. Knowing the expectations and having a roadmap
can support persistence. Tinto also discussed the importance of providing students with
consistent feedback. When students know how they are performing, they will become more
involved in learning activities (Tinto, 2012). Regular communication between faculty and
student can create a more positive learning environment. Utilizing feedback and other
assessment tools to engage students will help them feel they belong at the institution and
succeed.
Customizing First-Year Programs
Studies show that FYE programs can help institutions retain and support students,
particularly if these are customized to their needs (Cornell & Mosley, 2006; Hunter & Murray,
2007). Given what we know about persistence and retention in the first year, designing an FYE
program can help new students integrate into the college environment. This is especially true for
low-income first-generation students who commute to campus. The research on FYE programs
has developed positive outcomes for student achievement and success (Clark, 2005; Goodman &
Pascarella, 2006; Porter & Swing, 2006; Vander Schee, 2011). FYE programs can deepen
student learning in curricular and co-curricular ways, support relationships with faculty, peers,
and advisors, develop high expectations of personal and academic abilities, and integrate new
25
students academically and socially to the college environment. By building an inclusive and
collaborative learning environment, embedding advising, and ensuring every student participates
in a freshman seminar in which all these pieces are brought together, FYE programs can increase
student success. If colleges consider the first year as developmental, they will find greater
persistence among first-year students (Tinto, 1999). This is especially true for commuter students
who are balancing more areas of responsibility when they leave campus.
Sense of Belonging as a Theoretical Framework
Sense of belonging is derived from a human’s need for social connections, affections, and
bonds with others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Goodenow; 1993). Sense of belonging is also
rooted in Maslow’s (1968) theory of the human’s need to feel belonging, love, and respect.
Without these basic needs, an individual can suffer intellectually, socially, and mentally
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Goodenow, 1993). Without this belonging, a person will feel lonely,
isolated, and fall into depression (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Maslow, 1968). Sense of belonging
is feeling socially connected in positive social relationships. This connection will lead to feelings
of happiness and satisfaction (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Like food and water, belonging is a
human need (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Goodenow, 1993; Osterman, 2000; Strayhorn, 2012).
Sense of Belonging Among First-Generation Students
Sense of belonging is critical in first-generation students’ experience. In college, a sense
of belonging is a student’s sense of connectedness, feelings of social and academic support, and
a sense of mattering (Strayhorn, 2012). Goodenow (1993) identified the importance of feeling
accepted, included, and valued in the academic setting, specifically in the classroom by peers and
teachers. Goodenow (1993) and Osterman (2000) found that a student’s sense of belonging is
connected to academic motivation, leading to higher success. Students without a sense of
26
belonging have greater feelings of isolation, anxiety, and frustration, affecting academic
performance or leading them to drop out. This is especially true for first-generation students who
begin college less academically prepared than their peers (Strayhorn, 2012). A student’s ability
to feel cared for and connected can help them stay in college and succeed. There is great
importance in a student’s ability to make early connection to their institution. Relationships built
with faculty, staff, and peers can provide a space of belonging for students.
Sense of Belonging and Persistence
Students at risk of non-completion include ethnic minorities, first-generation students,
academically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, low-income students, and
probationary students (O’Keefe, 2013). Academic and social integration creates a sense of
belonging and fit for students and can be vital for attrition and success (O’Keefe, 2013). Tinto
(1987) suggests a student’s transition to college will depend on their social and academic
experience in the new environment. Tinto’s theory of integration helped explain students’
dropout behavior in college (Hurtado & Carter, 1997).
Social and academic integration increase satisfaction in college (Strayhorn, 2012). When
a student feels they fit in at college, they are more motivated. Hurtado and Carter (1997) identify
this as critical in supporting first-generation students. In their longitudinal cohort study of Latino
college students, Hurtado and Carter (1997) identified sense of belonging as a student’s unique
feelings of connectedness or cohesion to their environment. They looked at participation in
college activities and membership in groups as factors in attachment to the institution. A
student’s membership at a campus makes a difference in their feeling welcomed, safe, and like
they fit in. This, in turn, leads to higher rates of success and completion. The greater a student’s
sense of belonging at their institutions, the greater their commitment (Hoffman et al., 2002).
27
Sense of Belonging as a Challenge for First-Generation Students
The development of a sense of belonging is a challenge for first-generation students,
especially those who commute. Their disposition as commuters inhibits their relationship-
building and connections both inside and outside the classroom. Part-time enrollment does not
allow for much classroom interaction, which may leave students feeling out of place, alienated,
and isolated in the college environment (Cole, Newman et al., 2018). This challenge leads many
first-generation students to leave within their first year. For commuter students, social integration
is an even greater challenge. Relationships or memberships in student organizations are less
likely to happen since they may have little time to devote to extracurricular activities. Social
integration needs to happen in the classroom, as that is where many first-generation commuter
students spend their time in college. Interactions in the classroom can help develop the social
integration that allows for a sense of belonging.
Supporting Development and Sense of Belonging
Students’ adjustment into the college academic environment is important to their
transition and initial experience in college (Freeman et al., 2007). Students experience a great
transition from what they know to whom they need to be to succeed in college. Many first-year
students have separated from their high school support groups and expect to adjust to new
academic demands. The academic transition to college is central to feeling they can manage the
new environment and become part of the college community (Hurtado & Carter, 1997). Hurtado
and Carter (1997) found a strong relationship between a sense of belonging and formal and
informal academic interaction with classmates. This included discussions about common
courses, studying with peers, utilizing study labs and libraries, and more. This also assisted in
faculty-student interactions through a student’s second and third year of college.
28
Similarly, Hoffman et al. (2002) identified the importance of student-to-faculty and
student-to-student connection as a tool in developing a sense of belonging. The five factors
identified include students’ perceived support and comfort from faculty, perceived support from
peers, empathetic faculty who understand, perceived classroom comfort and belonging, and
perceived isolation. Also, Vaccaro et al. (2015) found that students who mastered their role as
students had a greater sense of belonging. Understanding their role as students and building a
connection to academic support programs played a critical role in mastering the student self.
Understanding academic tasks and how to earn good grades helped students feel like they
belonged (Vaccaro et al., 2015). Being needed by peers for study groups and performing well
allow students to feel that they are in the right place.
Faculty play a critical role in students’ academic integration and sense of belonging.
When students feel cared for and connected to faculty within the classroom, they are positively
drawn to the course and engaged (Freeman et al., 2007). This creates academic motivation.
Positive recognition and connection by students supported their academic achievement and
connection. Supportive relationships with faculty helped students feel like legitimate students
who belonged (Vaccaro et al., 2015). Positive connections and social relationships with faculty
helped students develop self-advocacy and mastery of the student role (Vaccaro et al., 2015).
Similarly, students benefit personally and academically from informal interactions with faculty.
They will feel more connected to the instructor and the college. This is an important factor in a
student’s sense of belonging at their institution. This is essential to the development of
connectedness and a sense of belonging.
According to Hoffman et al. (2002), researchers have long argued that social integration
and supportive relationships have a significant impact on students’ sense of belonging. Social
29
relationships support students’ transition to college. This is particularly true for first-generation
students and students of color (Hoffman et al., 2002). Students’ ability to fit in and develop
comfort in a new environment is instrumental in their integration. Interpersonal relationships
built through social integration alleviate challenges such as anxiety, depression, and attrition
(Hoffman et al., 2002). This is especially true for first-generation college students. Hurtado and
Carter (1997) found that students with religious and fraternity/sorority organization memberships
and social-community memberships had a significantly stronger sense of belonging than non-
members. Membership in peer groups and organizations allows students to make sense of their
environments and acquire the skills needed to integrate socially (Hoffman et al., 2002).
30
Chapter Three: Research Methodology
This chapter provides an overview of the methodology and research design that was used
to understand the following questions:
1. How does the TSLC program develop sense of belonging for low-income, first-
generation commuter students?
2. How does the UNO TSLC program staff describe designing the program to shape sense
of belonging for low-income, first-generation commuter students when compared to more
traditional college transition programs (i.e. UNK)?
This study sought to understand how higher education institutions can design college
transition programs that support low-income, first-generation commuter students’ sense of
belonging to aid in their college success. The chapter will cover the rationale for the design and
information regarding the site and selection of participants as well as how the data were
analyzed. The chapter will end by identifying providing the positionality of the author that might
influence the study.
Overall Design
The data were drawn from a wider research project that employed a longitudinal, mixed-
methods design to examine traditional academic short-term and long-term outcomes, such as
retention and GPA, and explored a multitude of psychosocial outcomes (e.g., career self-
efficacy, belonging) using quantitative and qualitative data (Cole, Kitchen et al., 2018). The
larger mixed-methods study included longitudinal surveys conducted with two cohorts of
participants, student focus groups, digital diaries, interviews with students, faculty, and program
staff, and case study data collection (e.g., program observations).
31
A qualitative research design helped explore the elements of transition programs
designed for low-income, first-generation college students. In this study, qualitative research
allows us to see how individuals construct meaning and make sense of the world around them
(Merriam, 2009). Qualitative research methods allow one to understand the conditions in which
the students experience their college environment. Denzin and Lincoln (2011) state,
Qualitative research is a situated actively that locates the observer in the world.
Qualitative research consists of a set of interpretative, material practices that make the
world visible. These practices transform the world. They turn the world into a series of
representations, including field notes, interviews, conversations, photographs, recordings,
and memos to the self…qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings,
attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people
bring to them. (p. 3)
Creswell (2014) summarized common characteristics of qualitative research, including
that it happens in a natural setting and that the researcher serves as a key instrument using
multiple methods ad complex reasoning through inductive and deductive logic. Participants’
meanings, emergent design, and reflexivity provide a holistic account. Qualitative methodology
is preferred when conducting exploratory studies because it allows for identifying anticipated
phenomena and influences (Maxwell, 1996). This type of research is based on the knowledge
constructed by people as they engage in and make meaning of the activities and experiences
under examination (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Similarly, Creswell (2014) states that qualitative
methodology allows the researcher to focus on learning the meaning that the participants give to
their experiences and provide a holistic account of the phenomena examined. Through
qualitative study, I understood how individuals make sense of their roles and their work by
32
uncovering and interpreting these meanings through multiple sources of data (Creswell, 2014;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). These concepts guided my approach as a researcher. Hearing directly
from the TSLC staff gave me a rich understanding of how program leaders designed the
programs with commuter students in mind. Through qualitative research, I examined the
program staff members’ experience in their environment, conducted interviews to hear their
stories, and attempted to see how their stories shaped those experiences. Similarly, I examined
the program’s development through the program staff members’ lens in terms of how they
continue to develop the program to ensure a sense of belonging among their students.
Case Studies
A case study provides an in-depth analysis of a program bound by time and activity
(Creswell, 2014). Through case study research, I analyzed participants’ individual voices to
represent various perspectives (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001). In this study, I provide multiple
perspectives and determined the similar or dissimilar elements of the TSLC program to
determine the significance, triviality, or meaning of those experiences for students in the
program.
I selected the descriptive case study as the methodology, as it is well-suited to the study’s
purpose. It allowed for an in-depth examination of a program that supports students’ transition to
college. With its unique set of characteristics and student populations, the case study approach
allowed for a thorough examination of the differences in cultures and practices of the TSLC
program. This was valuable in examining the different approaches to college transition program
development. The context in which these case studies took place allowed for a better
understanding of the environment, the differences in students served, and why the programs
developed the way did. Through the case study approach, I made meaning of the experiences of
33
both students and staff. This method enabled me to understand the complexity of views and
approaches of the TSLC program (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Site Selection
Creswell (2009) stated that purposefully selecting sites or individuals is the first step in
qualitative data collection because these sites or individuals will best help the researcher
understand the phenomena under analysis. The sampling strategy used in this study was
purposeful sampling. “Information-rich cases” (Patton, 2002, p. 40) are specifically selected
because they can provide in-depth information to answer the research questions. According to
Patton (2002),
Information-rich cases are those from which one can learn a great deal about issues of
central importance to the purpose of the research, thus the term purposeful sampling. (p.
46)
The TSLC at the center of this study exists on three university campuses: UNK, UNO, and
UNL. The program ranges in size from approximately 200 to 600 first- and second-year students.
For this study, I focused on the programs at UNO and UNK. UNO is a metropolitan university,
and the students served are racially, ethnically, and linguistically diverse. Of UNO’s 2,197 new
first-year students in fall 2018, 37.4% were first-generation, and 35% were members of ethnic
minority populations (Institutional Reports, 2019). Approximately 15% of the students in this
cohort were enrolled part-time (Institutional Reports, 2019). The program at UNO is the focus of
this study because the students served at this campus are commuter students. The 2016–2017
annual report indicates that 89.5% of TSLC students at UNO lived off-campus (UNO Thompson
Learning Communities, 2017). This program was compared to one at a campus with a residential
requirement and different program requirements to analyze how it serves the commuter student.
34
The other campus is UNK. UNK is situated in a rural community and primarily serves
students from other rural communities in Nebraska. Of the first-time freshman students in fall
2018, 40.6% were first-generation (Factbook, 2019). Of the same cohort, 99.5% were enrolled
full-time (Factbook, 2019). Of the 2017–2018 cohort in the TSLC program, 98% of the students
lived on-campus (Harvey et al., 2017).
The overall purpose of the TSLC program is to facilitate a successful college transition and
promote a pathway to college completion for participating students (see Figure 1). Students in
this program must be residents of the state from low-income households expected to contribute
less than $10,000 per year to the student’s education, which is determined by the financial aid
offices. The students apply for the scholarship while in high school. Students receive a 5-year
scholarship that covers approximately the full cost of tuition. They also participate in a 2-year
support program composed of shared academic courses, college success seminars, peer
mentoring, individualized professional advising, and social, academic, and educational programs.
Status as a first-generation college student is not required for participation, although many
participants do identify as such. The open application process and the relatively large financial
resources available through the private foundation to support the program mean that a diverse
group of students is included in the program. The program admits students with a wide array of
academic abilities and achievement levels.
35
Figure 1
Diagram of Comprehensive College Transition Program Components
Note. This diagram was developed by the Thompson Learning Scholars research team to
describe important component of a comprehensive college transition program. From “Typology
of College Transition and Support Programs: Situating a 2-Year Comprehensive College
Transition Program Within College Access,” by R.E. Hallett, A.Y Kezar, R.J. Perez, J. Kitchen,
2020, The American Behavioral Scientist, 64(3), p. 230-252. doi:10.1177/0002764219869410
36
Data Source
This case study drew upon (a) multiple observations of program activities conducted on-
site at each of the two universities, (b) documents, and (c) interviews with program directors and
staff.
Observations
Observations allowed me to explore and more comprehensively understand the TSLC
program. Observations helped identify commuter support areas that faculty, staff, and students
may not even be aware of given their engagement. For example, faculty may only be
peripherally involved in the program, and students might only experience part of the programs.
The research team members conducted observations of program-related activities over a 3-year
period, initially visiting multiple times each semester and then reducing the number of visits after
relationships were built and data began to reach saturation. Given that each researcher was
entering an existing community, we were passive observers in each setting (Spradley, 2016).
Over several years of data collection, however, researchers established relationships with faculty,
staff, and students in the programs, so researchers became more active participants in the settings
in which they were observing.
Observations were selected intentionally to identifying events with a similar focus across
the campuses. This strategy resulted in data that were directly comparable across institutions
(Bartlett & Vavrus, 2017). We also observed events unique to each campus, allowing for greater
understanding of differences between campuses. Our field notes documented the content of
events and discussions, students’ responses to content, and interactions among students, staff,
and faculty.
37
Documents
Documents allowed us to see the programs’ evolution to provide context for the current
programs. Documents helped to triangulate data and provided a different data point or
perspective. For example, documents about programs often point to views not expressed or even
known by current program staff and can add other perspectives for consideration. In this study, I
examined the institutions’ Factbooks developed by the institutional research department, the
annual reports compiled by the TSLC program, and the program’s website to see how the
program developed to its current state.
Throughout the study, several semi-structured interviews were conducted with program
staff at the two campuses. These interviews provided an understanding of program components
and processes and clarified information gathered in the larger project. The program staff
members were program directors, faculty coordinators, and program coordinators who provided
direct support to students, including teaching the first-year seminars. For each group, there was a
shared protocol to facilitate the collection of comparable data (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2017).
Interview protocols were designed to explore the development of the program, the explicit and
implicit goals of the various program interventions, and each stakeholder’s experiences with
students in the program. Interviews were professionally transcribed.
Program Staff Interview Selection
Each program has multiple points of contact for each student, including the program
director and support staff, faculty coordinator, and program coordinators. A primary point of
contact (POC) for each student allows a ready, consistent connection for information, support,
and encouragement. Staff members received training that emphasized the building of
relationships and providing validating experiences for students. Students meet regularly with
38
their POC, which facilitates the development of a relationship between them over time. Staff are
required to proactively reach out to students, initiating contact regularly to check on students.
The staff provide students both academic and interpersonal support. The research team
interviewed TSLC staff at each campus. Learning community directors, faculty coordinators, and
other learning community staff, were interviewed several times, while others (e.g., student affairs
professionals who are connected to the program) may have been interviewed just once.
Table 1
Estimated Interviews Per Campus
Campus Staff Interviews
UNO 15
UNK 12
39
The number of faculty and staff beyond key participants interviewed at each campus was
based on the size and scope of each program. Six to eight interviews were conducted with
program staff in the TSLCs at each campus. Because UNO is a larger campus with larger student
enrollment, it has more staff than UNK. For this reason, more interviews were conducted at the
UNO campus. These staff members worked collaboratively with the program from counseling,
student affairs, academic affairs, multicultural affairs at each campus. I learned more about
perceptions from key stakeholders about what works in the programs and why. The criteria used
to select interviews to review were years of involvement in the program and insight into the
programs based on different levels of connection to the program. On each campus, I reviewed 27
interviews of program staff (see Table 1).
Data Analysis
Data were deductive and inductively analyzed (Boyatzis, 1998). A code list was developed
using the literature review (see Appendix). Observation notes were read and re-read to identify
trends in the approach and content of program components. Interviews were analyzed
individually and then clustered based on the interviewees’ relationship with the program. A case
study document for each campus integrated the staff interviews, program observations, and
student data. I used these data to conduct a cross-case analysis of the two campuses.
The deductive aspects of the analysis utilized theoretical constructs to guide analysis and
evaluate specific program elements. Given how program staff approach program development to
support their students, narrative approaches helped maintain the complexities of individuals’
perspectives and experiences to understand the program development process. I analyzed the
program staff data to understand the experiences and recommendations for each of the program
elements (e.g., mentoring, first-year seminar, calendar of events, and activities). I looked for
40
information related to identifying commuter students, such as references made to working
students, students that are parents or providers, students with limited time, and more. I created
summary stories of the process, pulling data about their perspectives on student’s integration into
the program and how the programs were tailored to meet students’ needs.
With each interview, I reviewed notes and reflections from the researchers to develop
themes and to ensure I addressed assumptions I might have formed. This helped identify how the
programs support the development of a sense of belonging from the program staff members’
perspective using the list of codes developed from the literature.
Role and Trustworthiness of the Researcher
Qualitative research can be challenging because there is no one way to test the
trustworthiness of a study. However, different tools can be used when analyzing the data to
ensure the data are reported reliably. The prolonged engagement with each comprehensive
college transition program for four years enhanced the data’s credibility (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
The data were member-checked for accuracy with interviewees. Lastly, the study used multiple
forms of data and triangulated interviews, digital videos, observations, and documents. As
Creswell (2009) stated, “we conduct qualitative research when we want to empower individuals
to share their stories, hear their voices, and minimize the power relationships that often exist
between a researcher and the participants in a study” (p. 48). Through this study, I hoped to
empower the student experience by giving them an opportunity to share their stories with me.
Having this goal in mind, I ensured that I retold their stories and experiences accurately and
ethically.
41
Limitations
This study has unique limitations. TSLC has undergone multiple changes throughout its
existence and this study. For instance, the observations provided a snapshot at a specific point in
time. Second, many of the original program staff members are no longer part of the programs.
There has been a significant amount of staff turnover throughout the years, making it more
challenging to follow specific individuals throughout the program’s changes. With new
leadership and staff, the program makes changes. Nevertheless, multiple sources of data and the
study’s longitudinal nature contributed to a rich and holistic analysis.
Conclusion
This chapter summarized the methodology and pertinent components of the study,
including a description of the participants, the purpose of site selection, sources of data, and data
analysis. Chapter Four explores the data and reports the findings obtained from the analysis.
Chapter Five continues the discussion on the importance of the finding and the implications of
this study, developing recommendations for future research to best inform higher education
practitioners working with low-income, first-generation students.
42
Chapter Four: Findings
The primary purpose of this study as to identify how TSLC program staff at UNO
support commuter students’ development of a sense of belonging as compared to the experiences
of their peers at a residential campus (UNK). This chapter presents the findings from the
stakeholder interviews, observation notes, and research team data, focusing primarily on the
UNO TSLC program staff’s ability to develop a sense of belonging among their students. Two
research questions guided this study:
1. How does the TSLC program develop sense of belonging for low-income, first-
generation commuter students?
2. How does the UNO TSLC program staff describe designing the program to shape
sense of belonging for low-income, first-generation commuter students when
compared to more traditional college transition programs (i.e., UNK)?
As UNO is a predominantly commuter campus, I expected program staff and faculty
might explicitly talk about ways they work to support commuter students. Because all the
students were commuters, staff members did not make distinctions. Instead, they described
setting up programmatic activities or offering services in response to commuter students’ needs.
However, examining the data, there were trends in how programs and services were offered
differently at the Omaha campus that appeared to be related to meeting the commuter students’
needs.
This chapter presents the analysis of interviews of the TSLC program staff and
stakeholders and various observation data. Thirty-five interviews were reviewed and analyzed.
The research team conducted interviews at both UNO and UNK. The interviewees were program
staff, faculty, campus administrators, campus program leads, and other colleagues who worked
43
or provided support to the TSLC programs at each campus. Approximately 20 interviews
included reflection notes from the researchers that provided greater insight into the time, space,
and manner of each interview.
Observation data included information observed in classrooms, seminars, meetings,
program events and activities, reflection notes of stakeholder interviews, observations of spaces
and time, and most importantly, TSLC students. There were over approximately 143 observation
data that were reviewed and analyzed. These included various field notes, reflections from the
researchers, observations of classrooms, large and small gatherings, events, activities,
presentations, TSLC spaces, and engagement in those spaces. The richest data that provided
support for the findings was the observation data. The interviews provided supporting evidence
of the findings.
This chapter is organized as follows: the first section will describe how TSLC program
staff support the development of sense of belonging through strategic program design at UNO.
This includes physical spaces that develop a sense of community for students, strategic planning
around events and activities, including how programs and events are scheduled, and the strategic
approach to providing support. All these factors contribute to the development of a sense of
belonging for commuter students at UNO.
Chapter 5 will follow and include further discussions of the findings, implications for
institutions of higher learning, and recommendations for further research.
Developing Sense of Belonging Through Community Spaces
Program staff created physical community spaces that support a sense of belonging for
UNO’s TSLC commuter students. Low-income, first-generation college students are more likely
to be commuter students, which can make developing a sense of belonging more challenging. As
44
described in Chapter Two, this population balances multiple identities and responsibilities.
Going to college is not an easy decision. The TSLC program at UNO is strategically designed to
support these students by building a physical community around their experience. Community is
defined as spaces and people that provide students with intentional support and connections to
the institution. These connections help support the development of sense of belonging. Within
these community spaces, many things take place to support the commuter students build a sense
of belonging, including formal and informal uses of space. The formal use is built around the
program’s structure of staff, programming, and courses. The informal use is how program staff
allow the physical spaces of TSLC to feel like home for the students.
Community Space
The TSLC program is housed in Kayser Hall at UNO. The space is designed to provide
TSLC students with physical support and space needs. This space is important because it helps
provide students a comfortable and welcoming place to check in, rest or sleep, or meet peers. For
students who may live on campus, the residence halls can provide a space to return to between
classes or a private space to study. For the commuter student, that space is more difficulty to
find. The TSLC program staff at UNO have strategically developed a community space that
provides commuter students with a place to hang out, study, meet with peers and staff, and more.
The official program staff offices are housed in this space as well as a study lounge, sofas and
comfortable seats in the lobby and the café, and a refrigerator where students can store food.
Students have a quiet place to study, a space to hang out or meet peers and staff members, a
place to drop in for questions, or just a space to sit between classes. The lounge space has
artwork on the wall that promotes UNO’s TSLC program. The TSLC center allows for formal
and informal gatherings like meetings with program staff and seminars. Informal gatherings
45
include casual engagement among program faculty, staff, and students. UNO’s TSLC program
staff designed a space that allows students, mentors, staff, and faculty to congregate.
The intentionally designed space helps support the building of community. Program staff
recognize that students need a space to build formal and informal relationships. These
relationships help them connect to the TSLC community and build a sense of belonging. The
informal provides comfort, a sense of home, and a sense of belonging. In describing the culture
of their center and program, staff members use the term “family.” They describe the environment
that they strive for is that of “family.” The staff are flexible, informal, open, and welcoming. One
staff member reflects on this point:
I think every staff member strives, I think in our office, to serve students and guide
students in a way that feels real to them. Like we don’t have a prescriptive way that we
advise our students. And we try to really embrace that. We all have different things that
we bring to the table in working with students. As a byproduct I hope that we then
encourage our student leaders to do the same, it has a ripple effect, right? I think if our
students know that even if it’s not TLC related, they can come and get support from us,
that’s hopefully an important piece of that connection that they can come back, right?
And again, the next time that they can see us, and if things are stressful, we’ll be _____.
That’s my hope.
The creation of a community in the TSLC center is critical. The program staff strive to
make the spaces usable for their students and mentors. Observation data of the first day of school
reflects a Study Café filled with students and mentors hanging around. Staff provide snacks
while mentors and mentees engage in conversations about class and work schedules, childcare,
and activities taking place that week. Students are seen bringing in peers outside of the TSLC
46
program. This helps students build connections with those outside the program and allows for
networking beyond their TSLC peers.
Formal Use of Space
The center houses the TSLC program staff offices the space for small group seminars,
and the space where the mentors work. The space is also customized to provide TSLC students
with a study lounge, a computer lab, and place to meet with mentors and mentees. The formal
interactions that take place in this space ensure students are regularly in the center, meeting with
staff in one place, and are comfortable enough for informal interactions. In describing how to
utilize the TSLC space, one staff member shares the intentional thought that went into organizing
the staff offices and furniture to make it welcome for student engagement.
Observation data reflects a full office on the first day of school. Students are in the TSLC
offices getting assistance with scheduling, asking questions, and being present and engaged.
Mentors are visible, answering questions, and guiding students. Students go in and out of the
staff offices. The center television displays share the staff’s daily schedule that reflect when they
are available or scheduled for meetings. This reflects the staff’s flexibility with meeting with
students and the importance of students knowing they are important. Some may say there is a
level of bureaucracy removed by requiring “making an appointment.”
At UNK, these open centralized spaces do not exist. Students are asked to make
reservations for the study lounges. Mentor and mentees meet in the community spaces of the
residence halls. At UNK, logging in study hours is required of the program with paid mentors
who supervise. It is evident in the UNO data that commuter students do not have the flexibility to
not study between work, school, and home. They do not have the luxury of living on campus. As
47
was evident in the observation data, it takes about 30 minutes to drive a mile around campus.
The travel time to and from school creates a barrier for the commuter student to balance time.
Informal Space: Home
For students to build community and believe they have a place that is theirs outside of
their primary home, TSLC staff work hard to make the space feel like a second home. They have
designed the program to provide formal spaces for classrooms, office, and working and informal
spaces for engagement. The informal use of the space serves as an extension of the student’s
home on campus. In several interviews with program staff, community is referenced as home. As
one program lead shared,
Making sure that our students get in here, we retain them, and that we graduate them.
That’s our, that’s our number one. And we do that once again in a variety of ways. I think
number two other than the students, well, I guess it ties back to students. Everything we
do is pretty much about the students. Engagement, involvement, development, you know,
as well, within the student body and population. And, through connections, I would say
all about building the community within here.
Another staff member reflects:
One of the goals I would say that we have is to create campus and TLC as a home for our
students. Because I think so many of our students don’t live on campus, that that’s an
important part. That they know they can come here and stay here and feel like there are
outlets to stay here. That they’re not just coming to class and leaving.
Home is another extension of community with TSLC. As evident in these reflections from
program staff, much of the vision for the program is centered around building a second home for
their students on campus. Though the goal of connection is the same at UNK, a centralized space
48
does not exist on that campus. Similarly, at UNO, staff bring plastic bags and containers to allow
the students to take home food left over from events or leave them in the TSLC lounge where
student always have access to food. This is not something found at UNK. Food and meals are a
reoccurring discussion with the UNO program staff. Food and meals are always accessible for
students, whether as part of activities and events or regularly having coffee and popcorn in the
Lounge. Home is a place that provides one with meals and family. A program lead shares,
“[With the] first year, we want [students] to feel comfortable. We want them to feel like this is
their safe space. This is their little home.”
The TSLC staff work hard to ensure this space feels like a second home to their students.
Even with less going on campus, during summer sessions, for instance, students are still using
the computer labs and studying in the TLC lounge and the seating areas near the elevator. This
gives the observer the sense that even if there less going on, students still feel that they can come
to TLC as a “home base” of sorts on campus. As a one program administrator shared,
We have tried since the beginning and part of our goals [to make] TSLC [a] ‘home
base’—into their majors, careers, and campus. We provide that secure spot and our real
goal is to make sure that they are fully connected.
The front desk of the TSLC center regularly has a group of students congregated in
informal interactions. The front desk is where the mentors are formally situated, but one always
finds informal interaction taking place between students, staff, and faculty. The data reflect a
revolving door of students and staff coming in and out of the space. Students meet with other
students, students come and see who is around, students come in for simple questions, and more.
By and large, students reflected on the meaningful relationships and connections to TSLC
peers and program staff. In several instances, the sense of community and connection was
49
shared. Students felt valued and cared for by others, making their time with TSLC even more
important. The sense of community critically supports the student development of a sense of
belonging at UNO.
Importance of Scheduling Programs for Commuter Students
An emerging theme evident in the observation data and the various stakeholder
interviews was the importance of scheduling and sequencing programs and events for the TSLC
students at UNO. The TSLC commuter student at UNO is typically balancing multiple roles,
including parent, caregiver, employee, and student. In early observation data of the FYE
Breakfast held at 8 am on August 15, 2016, some students and mentors were late to the event. It
was later discovered that many of the student mentors, who are paid for these on-campus
positions, are also balancing multiple job responsibilities. Frederick* arrived at the welcome
breakfast after a 4:00 am -7:00 am shift at the airport. Similarly, another student, James*, shared
that he works five days a week at an automotive shop in a neighboring town. Besides her
mentorship job on campus, Carley* was balancing an additional 20 hours of work between other
jobs off campus. How and when activities of TSLC are scheduled helps in building a sense of
belonging. This is done throughout event scheduling, including the monthly dinners and the
consideration of the students’ family time.
As initial observation data showed UNO program staff recognized the timing of events
ensured the success of the activity and the students’ participation. Staff schedule events and
programs to make it convenient and possible for students to participate and engage. Participation
in such events allows for strengthening a sense of belonging to only the TSLC program and their
student identity at UNO.
50
Table 2
UNO Events Schedule for Commuter Students
Events Date Time
TLC Freshman Dinner September 9, 2015 4:15 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.
Juice Run September 8, 2015 4:00 p.m.
Mentor-Mentee Dinner/Basketball Outing February 10, 2016 6:15 p.m.
Honors Reception March 15, 2016 4:00 p.m.
FYE End of Year Dinner April 20, 2016 5:00 p.m.
Monthly Dinners with Mentors Throughout year 4:00 p.m.
Family Picnic Saturday morning 11:00 a.m.
SYE Etiquette Dinner October 25, 2017 Unknown
TLC Second-Year Launch April 4, 2018 5:00 p.m. – 6:30 p.m.
Scheduling Events
Program staff at TSLC UNO have strategically scheduled required programming in the
evenings on and off campus to support student engagement and sense of belonging. Observation
data reflects several social and formal activities taking place after 4:00 p.m. during the week.
These events have included academic gatherings, recognition events, social activities, and more
(see Table 2). At UNK, a few events take place off-campus, requiring additional travel time. For
the commuter student, traveling from campus to other locations for events would be challenging.
The TSLC staff work to ensure that all activities and events, whether required or optional, are
accessible and convenient for their commuter students.
Monthly Dinners
The monthly dinners are designed to bring students, mentors, and program staff together
for an informal social gathering. The monthly dinners take place across both campuses in the
TSLC program. Though these are required pa, they are meant to provide a space for fun social
activities that are more difficult for the commuter students to experience or make time for. This
is one of the only times all the TSLC students are brought together in the program to build
51
connections and network with peers. The dinner requirements play a more prominent and
important role for the commuter students. The residence hall experience at UNK provides a
space for students to congregate for meals with peers daily. For the UNO student, this
opportunity is difficult and inconvenient to experience as a commuter student. The monthly
dinners provide this group of students a unique opportunity to gather and gain community among
peers and program staff. This, in turn, helps students build a sense of belonging to the college,
the program, and their student identity.
According to a program staff member, the dinners take place at specific points
throughout the year and have varying informal and formal programs. “It is a space to reconnect,”
he shared. This activity is scheduled to take place directly after classes at 4:00 p.m. The
scheduling of an early dinner makes it more convenient for the commuter students to participate.
Though some shared that the dinners required them to take time off work or find childcare, the
staff strategically scheduled the activity to remove barriers for students who would not be on
campus for classes already, making it convenient and accessible for the commuter student. This
is different from the programming at UNK, a residential campus. Events are scattered throughout
the day, evening, and weekends because of the flexibility a resident student has in their day.
Strategic Scheduling of Programs that Promotes the Inclusion of Family
Some of the UNO commuter students are parents and raising families. Others have
families who may not be able to support them but are included in milestone celebrations. The
TSLC staff provide opportunities for students to incorporate their families into the program.
These opportunities are created in casual social and formal settings. Program staff schedule
opportunities for family inclusion and incorporate their own families as well. Blending the
personal with the professional and academic lives allows students to feel more connected to the
52
program and staff. This connection helps to ensure that students feel a sense of community and
belonging in the TSLC community.
For instance, a family picnic was scheduled on a Saturday for the UNO TSLC families.
Students and staff were invited to bring their children and partners to a casual Saturday picnic
where they could form social bonds. Incorporating family allowed students and staff to share
their personal identities with their student and professional identities. Observation data reflects
that the focus of most conversations was around the children and childcare. Time was spent
eating and chasing children in a very social environment. Incorporating family during what may
be the student’s time with family brings the students closer together. Seeing peers, mentors, and
program staff in their personal spaces allows for greater confirmation of their student identity
and their sense of belonging as a TSLC at UNO. To do this, program staff are intentional with
scheduling events that work for the student’s balancing of multiple identities. Strategic
scheduling allows for what would be regularly scheduled family time to be TSLC family time as
well. This is not the case at UNK. The students of TSLC at UNK are resident students who live
in dorms and are less likely to be raising a family. Intentionally designed programs to support
family connection were not evident at UNK.
Another example of including family is that families are invited to formal ceremonies
such as the Honors Reception and the Spring Graduation. Scheduling these events around times
that work for the students and their families creates further opportunities to blend personal life
with student life. Providing opportunities for family incorporation into the formal and informal
TSLC activities allows students to feel a further sense of belonging at UNO.
53
Intentional Programming and Support
TSLC program staff at UNO specifically support commuter students through changes in
the programming and support in the first year. UNO staff identified challenges unique to
commuter students and incorporate such programs to support a sense of belonging. These
changes include embedded mentors, shared courses, an autobio program, and intentional
wraparound support.
Embedded Mentors
The mentorship component of the TSLC program exists on all three campuses. It is an
integral part of helping the students make connections with peers in a supportive way. Mentor
selection and pairing are intentional. As one staff member shared, “The strengths of the program
are the support that we give our students. We rely a lot upon the mentors to [provide the support]
within the first and second year.” The mentoring design at UNO is different from that found at
UNK. At UNO, TSLC staff have intentionally designed the mentorship program to support the
students in the seminar program. The peer mentors assigned to each seminar also support the
students individually. They are paired with the same mentor in and outside of the classroom.
The embedded mentors make it convenient for the student to have time with the mentors
no matter what the circumstances. The mentors build greater connections with peers. Embedding
mentors allows for more time with the student and a higher number of interactions to build a
mentor-mentee relationship. Commuter students, when compared to residential students, have
limited time on campus. Meeting with a mentor regularly may cause more challenges in staying
connected with the TSLC program. By intentionally embedding mentors and students in the
classroom, they naturally engage the students in other TSLC program elements. This allows for
54
the mentees to build greater connections with their mentors. Being in their classroom makes for
smoother one on one meetings with mentors as well.
Observation of a US1020 course revealed the instructors share that the mentor for this
course is very connected to the students. She shares that the mentor and students use various
platforms to communicate. Being exposed to the peer mentors in the classrooms allows for an
easier connection outside. Building these connections helps students feel safe and connected to
TSLC and UNO. The peer mentor connection helps to feel as though they have a friend outside
the program whom they regularly see, which builds their sense of belonging.
Shared Courses
The TSLC program at UNO intentionally placed students in shared academic courses.
Commuter students in TSLC attend the first-year seminar together and share other courses. A
student’s ability to build relationships and make connections on campus is hindered by
commuting. These students have few windows of opportunity to engage and connect to their
faculty, peers, and program resources. Students see familiar faces in multiple courses in their
first year through these courses. They can connect with their peers in a more natural setting.
When a student feels a connection or feels part of a community through these peer relationships
and shared commonalities, they can better develop a sense of belonging.
Autobio Class
The autobio class is unique to the UNO TSLC program. The autobio course assists
students with their writing abilities and allows them to connect personally. The subject matter
studied is the self. Through the course, faculty validate students’ stories and provide a space for
self-reflection and community building. In this space, students can let their guard down and learn
that they have more in common with their peers than they might have thought. Observation data
55
reflect that students felt that autobio enhanced their ability to empathize with others and their
understanding of themselves. The instructors provide feedback in a way that makes students feel
they matter. Sharing experiences checks their assumptions of other students. This promotes
connection and a sense of belonging in this course and among the peers. Commuter students
have a significant challenge in connecting with their peers personally and emotionally given the
limited space and time they have to connect with others in class. The autobio class provides this
unique space to reflect.
The autobio course is also designed with a common read intentionally selected to help
students to connect. Author Reyna Grande was invited to share her journey across borders with
the students. This author’s life before and after immigrating illegally and the journey of finding
her identity assists in developing dialogues with the students. As low-income, first-generation
college students, they connect with many of Grande’s reflections. Providing students an
opportunity to read about a successful author who experienced fear, marginalization, and identity
challenges allows them to feel they are not alone in their journey. The Q&A with the author
reflects the challenges the TSLC students experience. For a commuter student, these challenges
are more potent and real.
The autobio class hosts a signature event, Autobio Reading. First-year TSLC students
share a part of their autobiography with those in the community. Faculty invite two or three
students from their sections to share their autobiography. The event brings in those from the
foundation, including Suzie Buffet of the Buffet Foundation. The Autobio Reading provides a
safe space to learn about the first-year students. By sharing their stories, the students get a
glimpse of their peers’ identities outside of what they know through TSLC. Some students reflect
on their relationship with their parents and the challenges of building their own identities. Others
56
share personal experiences of domestic abuse, violence, or discrimination. The Autobio Readings
allow for a deeper appreciation and understanding of where the students come from and how real
the struggle of being a student is. As noted in the observation data,
I was not prepared how emotional of an experience this would be for me. My emotions
were triggered by the stories, but I found myself starting to tear up once students I knew
started to read – hearing Carrie* and Kaylee* felt different since I’ve beginning to build
relationships with them and they were a bit emotional as they read. And Laura’s story
was so painful to hear that I couldn’t help but cry since she was emoting and so were all
of the people around me.
This reflects how every student’s journey has been and continues to be a struggle. By sharing
these stories out loud, faculty, staff, and foundation members can process the importance of their
work for the TSLC students. For the TSLC students, it validates their existence on a college
campus. They are not alone in their struggles. They have more in common with their peers than
they might think. This, in turn, tightens the TSLC community around each student. This
community helps validate the student’s sense of belonging in TSLC.
The autobio program offers a unique opportunity for TSLC students to connect with their
peers on a deeper level. By sharing their stories and listening to their peers, students can connect
in a new way. This course allows students to feel connected in a non-academic way. Faculty play
an important role in creating this safe space to do this type of personal reflection. By allowing
themselves to share personal stories, struggles, and successes, students feel closer to one another.
This builds a level of community that allows them to feel a sense of belonging in this
community. Learning about one another in this setting helps them recognize they are not alone in
57
the struggle of identity. They are surrounded by peers who know and understand how and why
they are a Thompson Scholar.
Intentional Support
Student support comes in multiple areas of the UNO TSLC. Program staff developed a
process in which students are tracked and cared for. Every part of the program is connected. This
includes the shared classes, the PALs in the seminars, the PALs as mentors, staff availability and
accessibility, and the faculty engagement in the classroom. In February of 2018, students were
observed reflecting on the positive connections made with staff and mentors. Students describe
the faculty as supportive and engaging and, as individuals, they feel comfortable with and can
connect. Faculty connections are hard to build as a commuter student as one is never on campus
long enough to spend time in office hours or after class. How TSLC at UNO is designed helps
promote this relationship. In an interview, one program staff member shared,
I think with everything that we do [we are] very intentional. I tell students that right off
the bat. When we meet them, everything designed in TLC, everything that you’re going
to encounter in these two years that we have you, everything is very intentional for the
purpose that we want to see you succeed.
This quote illustrates the importance of connectivity in the work of TSLC at UNO, especially
given the commuter student identity.
Monthly meetings are designed to bring faculty, program staff, and PALs/mentors
together to discuss and share students’ progress, academically and otherwise. These meetings are
unique to the UNO TSLC program. The meetings allow faculty, program staff, and mentors to
connect on what is happening with each student in the TSLC program. The meetings are divided
by first-year students last name initials. Faculty provide notes on each student in advance, so the
58
program staff are aware. The meeting allows for faculty and staff to share the progress of the
students and cohort in general.
Because commuter students spend minimal time on campuses, they are less engaged and
connected to faculty and staff. With this intentional support design in place, students are taken
care of in a very supportive way that includes various interventions. Faculty, in most cases,
oversee the students enrolled in their class with minimal external support. At the UNO TSLC
program, faculty are closely integrated with the students through the TSLC program staff
members’ support. For instance, in one of these meetings, dated October 2016, humanities
faculty share they are concerned with the students writing. This allows for discussion across the
courses and programming to see how students can be better supported. Some faculty identify
struggling students in their courses to see if others are having similar challenges. If there is
concern across the board, TSLC program staff become aware and approach the student through
their advising meetings. Through the observation notes in the faculty meetings, it is very clear
that staff and faculty really know their students. They can comment on instances of family
challenges, a student being in a band and traveling, or just academically struggling. Table 2
illustrates some of the discussions that take place around intrusive student’s support.
59
Table 3
Observation Notes from Monthly Collaborative Meeting
English
instructor
- Gary* has only attended 7 class meetings and has missed 6. They
have rescheduled their appointment 4 times; she must now meet
weekly and attend classes to pass. Program Staff mentions that she
seems anxious and she is already meeting with her. Another
instructor also offers to reach out to-she is doing fine in his class
and attends.
Autobio
instructor
- Milton* has missed 3 classes and seems affected by some family
issues that are happening right now. There is a conversation
between the group about who would be the best to follow up with
him. They decide that the instructor will follow up.
- Taryn* did not turn in his midterm, he has a C or higher and seems
engaged.
- Nate’s* writing is “louder than a bomb.” She left people in tears
with the “I want you to know assignment.”
- Samira* is very shy and has a couple of zeros. She has been referred
to the writing center
- Herman is doing C+/B- work, but he’s been talking a lot in class and
he has a lot of family responsibility. The instructor worries that he is
on the edge of not doing well
Geology
instructor
- Mary* bombed her test, she shared that she only studied for 15
minutes. He worried that she has such language challenges that she
might wonder if it’s worth it. She seems frustrated, but he and the
PAL have given her a “whole suite of strategies, but she’s not even
taking notes.”
- Ronald* is not doing well, her autobio instructor mentions that she
has an issue with both language and attention.
Philosophy
instructor
- Mary* seems to have a language placement issue. Program Staff is
working on this and says that she is helping the student to “step it
up.”
Table 3 illustrates a collaborative intervention discussion for TSLC students. With the
limited time the students have to engage on campus, what happens in the classroom reflects what
may be happening in their personal lives. This intervention model allows staff to identify
challenges and barriers and step in with the support needed to get the student on track.
60
Observation data reflect true caring for the student’s experience. Multiple faculty and program
staff can speak about a student’s challenge. They all have information they can share to put
pieces of a puzzle together. This is unique for the TSLC program at UNO. With all the
challenges a low-income first-generation student is experiencing, having intentional support built
around the student will provide the proper tools and guidance in the student’s ability to persist. A
student’s ability to persist from one class to the next and one semester to the next will help
provide the sense of belonging. As one student stated, “The advisors and staff are extremely
helpful. They don’t care that you are struggling, they want you to feel better.” This quote
illustrates the student’s understanding of how the staff view their success as students.
Based on observation data, the faculty are very engaged in the students’ needs, and the
program staff help supplement the support where needed. The level of respect for the students is
observed through the dialogue that takes place. Nothing about the student is spoken in a negative
tone, but in a worrisome professional manner. This type of interaction among faculty and
program staff is not present in observation data. In fact, it is noted how different this program
runs when compared to the UNK program. Program staff at UNO have set a specific expectation
and tone for this part of the program. Faculty respect the students and their challenges. The team
works collaboratively to show the UNO commuter student that they matter and belong through
connecting with them in the classroom and providing interventions when needed.
Conclusion
This chapter presented findings regarding how TSLC program staff at UNO provide
programming that supports the development of a sense of belonging for low-income, first-
generation college students’ transition to college in their first year. The analysis included
interviews of program staff and campus stakeholders from two campuses, over 20 interview
61
reflection notes, and approximately 143 observation and field notes, including diagrams,
program agendas, and pictures. The findings reflect strong support for the development of a
sense of belonging within the TSLC program at UNO related to the commuter student
experience. The program design and community spaces were significantly different from the
peer campus at UNK. Through the physical spaces, and uniquely coordinated programming,
UNO, TSLC staff intentionally support commuter students’ connections and support at UNO.
Chapter 5 will follow and include further discussion of the findings, implications for practice,
and recommendations for future research.
62
Chapter Five: Discussion and Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to understand how TSLC program staff develop a sense of
belonging among low-income, first-generation college students who commute to campus. The
study examined how program staff designed the TSLC program to support the commuter student
experience in the first-year college transition at the University of Nebraska, Omaha (UNO)
campus. I examined how the TSLC program at UNO differed from its peer program on the
Kearney (UNK) campus, a predominately residential campus.
As discussed in the literature, college transition programs play a critical role in
supporting low-income, first-generation college students first-year experience (Kezar, 2000;
Sablan & Tierney, 2014). As identified in this study, college transition programs have unique
components that provide guided support and resources to low-income, first-generation commuter
students. This transition and experience are very different for a student who does not reside on a
college campus. Commuter students in any higher education institution face unique challenges
that create barriers to their transition and success in college (Jacoby & Garland, 2004). This
study found that, through TSLC, low-income, first-generation commuter students can be better
supported to build a sense of belonging and are better equipped with information and resources
to support their first year. This chapter will summarize the findings from this study, discuss the
connections to the literature, discuss any limitations and implications for practice, and offer
recommendations for future research.
The data analysis highlighted the value and importance of the TSLC program for low-
income, first-generation college students, especially commuter students (McMillan &
Schumacher, 2001). TSLC program staff at both campuses were committed to providing unique
experiences to their students (Cornell & Mosley, 2006); Hunter & Murray, 2007). At UNO
63
specifically, staff provided tailored programming that differed from the TSLC at Kearney and
was specific to the commuter students’ experience. This study’s findings supported the literature
in how college transition programs support a sense of belonging in low-income, first-generation
commuter students.
Summary of Findings
The TSLC program supports the development of a sense of belonging among low-
income, first-generation college students in their first year of college. The TSLC program’s
design at UNO is consistent with the literature’s recommendations for transition programs. I
identified specific ways the TSLC staff at UNO structured the program to develop a commuter
student’s sense of belonging. These findings strongly support the literature reflecting the
importance of a sense of belonging for the commuter student.
Developing Sense of Belonging Through Community Spaces
The space designated for the TSLC program at UNO provides students a centralized
location to meet their needs. The findings reflect the existence of community building in that
space. Students connection to the campus is supported by this community space (Engle & Tinto,
2008). The TSLC center in Kayser Hall houses all a TSLC student needs on campus. The design
and programming instituted by program staff requires the use of this space. The space creates
opportunities for students to gather with peers formally and informally. The space is important in
developing a sense of belonging on campus (Engle & Tinto, 2008). Students who commute to
campus have difficulty finding a place they belong that can support their needs. This space
created opportunities to connect with staff and faculty, a place with various supportive resources,
a place to nap, a place to meet their mentors, and a place to have lunch. Making friends and
connecting with campus staff is a greater challenge for this student population (Vaccaro et al.,
64
2015). Creating a space that feels like home supports a sense of belonging. The TSLC staff at
UNO organized the TSLC to bringing all these components together. Staff built community
around the commuter student’s needs.
The findings support the literature on the challenges first-generation commuter students
face. As discussed in Chapter Two, low-income, first-generation students who commute to
campus are more likely to be part-time students, balance multiple responsibilities outside the
student identity, and have significant challenges adjusting to college (Gianoutsos & Rosser,
2014; Jacoby, 2014; Jacoby & Garland, 2004, Lee, 2018, Schuchman, 1974). Having a psychical
space dedicated to supporting them was critical to ensuring a sense of belonging. Given the
limited time they can spend on campus, the TSLC space at UNO centralized all the ingredients
needed to help their students feel at home, and feel they have a place they belong on a large
university campus.
Successfully Scheduling Program for Commuter Students
Another way TSLC program staff support the development of sense of belonging for
low-income, first-generation commuter students is through the strategic way they schedule their
programs. The data reflect program staff strive to make events, courses, and activities convenient
for students. This finding was unique to the UNO TSLC program. These findings support the
literature in that the commuter student can easily lose the student identity (Jacoby, 2014; Jacoby
& Garland, 2004). The finding reflects the strategic way in which programming is organized in
the TSLC program at UNO.
In addition to program scheduling, TSLC program staff have also been intentional in the
type of events they organize. For instance, though every TSLC program hosts a monthly dinner
for students and mentors, the way UNO program staff have required and scheduled the dinners is
65
intentionally designed to support the commuter students’ ability to connect with their mentors
formally and informally. The scheduling and sequencing of such programs are critical to
providing the commuter student opportunities to build a sense of belonging.
This finding is in line with the literature in that transition programs’ core components
require support and involvement (Tinto, 2012). The intentional scheduling of events and the type
of events provide the TSLC students at UNO with convened opportunities to connect, feel
supported, and get involved. These are critical in a student’s ability to develop sense of
belonging (Tinto, 2014). The literature also discusses the value of a college environment in a
student’s connection and satisfaction with an institution (Astin, 2001). Commuter students have a
more difficult time building this connection, particularly in the first year (Ishitani & Reid, 2015;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Through intentional scheduling, TSLC staff create opportunities
for students to engage in campus life through the program. This helps them better integrate,
engage, and persist in the first year. The findings were aligned with the literature.
Intentional Programming and Support
I identified how UNO’s TSLC staff develop unique programming that fosters a sense of
belonging. This included embedding mentors in the first-year seminar. I found that, because of
the embedded mentoring, TSLC students gain access to peer support both in and outside the
classroom. The embedded mentors make it convenient for the students to have time to connect
with their peers no matter the circumstances, which is important due to the limited time these
students spend on campus outside the classroom. The data support the connection students can
make with peers in the classroom to support them outside of the classroom. This is instrumental
in building a sense of belonging (Cornell & Mossley, 2006; Goodman & Pascarella, 2006;
Hunter, 2006).
66
Similarly, TSLC staff have uniquely designed courses that support a sense of belonging.
The shared courses intentionally place students together. This helps students build relationships
and make connections with their peers, an important component in building a sense of belonging
(Cornell & Mossley, 2006; Goodman & Pascarella, 2006; Hunter, 2006). The autobio class is
another example unique to the UNO TSLC program. The subject matter for the autobio class
allows for self-reflection among peers. Through the autobio class, students learn about their
peers and identify shared challenges and experiences. This allows students to recognize they are
not alone (Hunter, 2006). Sharing experiences with peers promotes connection and a sense of
belonging. This is an important component in successful college transition programs (Goodman
& Pascarella, 2006; Hunter, 2006; Tinto, 1999). Because students commute, receiving support
outside the classroom is a challenge. The staff at UNO build in activities and opportunities in the
courses that directly support a sense of belonging (Tinto, 2012). Students are part of a learning
community that fosters social relationships and personal and social integration to the institution
while the seminar supports persistence and academic achievement through a specially designed
curriculum (Barefoot, 2001; Levine, 1999; Mayhew et al., 2016).
Finally, TSLC program staff at UNO intentionally build wrap-around support. They
developed a process to track each student. Faculty are engaged with their students in the
classroom, mentors relate to their peers, and program staff are aware of their students’ challenges
and experiences through these connections. The monthly meetings reflect how program staff,
faculty, and mentors connect on what is happening with each student. The triage of support
keeps the team engaged in students’ progress. Program staff help supplement the support with
case management and oversight where needed. Intrusive advising is a successful tactic used in
college transition programs (Engle & Lynche, 2011). The case management approach, as
67
identified by Bers and Younger (2014), provides a comprehensive system that can get students
through the first year successfully. This system supports the literature on the important
components of college transition programs (Tinto, 2012). The academic advising and built-in
support are critical to first-year transition programs (Tinto, 2012). They also support a student’s
ability to develop a sense of belonging to the student identity (Hunter, 2006; Tinto, 1999).
Recommendations for Practice
The development of a sense of belonging in low-income, first-generation college students
is critical in their college transition. College transition programs play an important role in
supporting this development in the first year, particularly for commuter students (Cornell &
Mossley, 2006; Goodman & Pascarella, 2006). Such programs help this population find a place
on a large college campus. They help students develop a sense of belonging within the academic
environment and find a place to belong. Through college transition programs like TSLC,
students develop knowledge and gain access to resources to help them succeed. As found in this
study, the physical space, staff connections, mentorship, shared courses, and intentionally
designed programs play a critical role in a successful college transition program. For commuter
students, these components are critical. The student who resides on a college campus has
resources and programming embedded on that on-campus, the residential experience. For the
commuter student with limited time, money, and resources to invest in the student identity,
college transition programs need to fill those caps to provide them an opportunity to succeed.
Recommendations for practice are presented below.
Identifying a Space
Colleges and universities can have greater success in recruiting and retaining vulnerable
student populations by developing wraparound services that include a physical space with
68
embedded support. Spaces should be central campus locations that house student services and
academic support, provide a space to take a nap or connect with peers, and a place where
students run into professors and advisors. The TSLC centralized community space at UNO
allowed students to feel connected and at home. These connections and feelings are hard to
develop if a student is commuting. A student’s ability to find a safe and supportive place on a
college campus will provide the necessary net to keep them on campus. Commuter students are a
vulnerable population, and this would be supportive of their college experience.
Embedded Programs and Services
Strategically embedded programs and services will contribute to success in a student’s
transition to college. Commuter students are less likely to be full-time students and less likely to
spend time on campus (Burlison, 2015; Engle & Tinto, 2001). Embedded programming is
necessary to create this opportunity for engagement and connections. For instance, faculty
engagement proved a safety net around the TSLC students. As counselors or program staff, we
only see students outside the classroom. By integrating faculty in our programs, we can better
support students’ academic identity in the first year. Similarly, education institutions should
consider developing programs catered to the commuter student experience. Increasing online or
evening/weekend access for engagement and peer connection can support these students’
experience. These students balance multiple identities and responsibilities but still need to
connect with their academic identity. Programing around them is our ability to meet the students
where they are. Program support and design need to be intentional and keep students’ identities
in mind.
69
Mentorship
Embedding mentors in the classroom was a central component of the UNO TSLC
program. Mentorship beyond the first year is also as important. There is opportunity to support
low-income, first-generation commuter students with a vast network of alumni. Keeping students
connected to TSLC beyond the first- and second-year experience may provide greater validation.
This would create a continued sense of connection to the institution for students and alumni.
Many who experience programs like TSLC create a stronger bond with the institution.
Institutions can build their alumni network back into the system to support vulnerable students’
transition to college.
Recommendations for Future Research
The purpose of this descriptive study was to examine how TSLC program staff supported
the development of a sense of belonging for low-income first-generation college students in
college transition programs. Specifically, the study examined how staff supported commuter
students compared to those who live on a residential campus. As this study found, there is value
in building the research around the commuter student experience.
College experiences vary between commuter and non-commuter students, and the
research on college transition programs designed specifically for commuter students is limited.
(Engle & Tinto, 2008; Lee, 2018; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Though this study supported
the literature, there were several limitations. As higher education practitioners, there is a need to
recognize changes in the students we serve, specifically on a high-commuter campus. This study
provided support for the literature but was based on a specific program at one 4-year institution.
The findings cannot be generalized. As discussed, there are aspects of a college transition
program that vary for the commuter student. There is a need to examine how college transition
70
programs need to be customized at various higher education institutions. For example,
community colleges support a high number of commuter and part-time students, as discussed in
the literature. It would be beneficial to examine how such a program should be tailored to this
type of campus. The second component is the location of the campus. A 4-year or 3-year college
campus would vary in size and scope from the mid-west to the west coast. It is important to
examine how location and can affect college transition programs for low-income first-generation
college students.
Another area of consideration is the student identities that fall within the low-income,
first-generation commuter student profile. There are far more specific identities within the larger
population that can be examined. For instance, veterans have unique experiences and challenges.
Their financial obligation is different, as they may have the GI Bill to support their tuition and
expenses. Veterans also have different mental health challenges. These experiences are unique to
the veteran student and areas of consideration when thinking about college transition programs to
support a sense of belonging. Other examples are students who are parents, racial minorities,
English learners, foster youth, and student-athletes. These groups have other identities besides
low-income, first-generation commuter student. They have different draws and reasons for
pursuing a college degree. These reasons also differ by institution. There would be value in
examining how college transition programs can be tailored to support these populations.
Another gap in this research is the student’s experience. Though the study examined how
program staff developed a sense of belonging for students, the students’ voices were left out.
Though some student perspective was captured, examining the student experience could
strengthen the study. By examining how students experienced the program’s support of their
sense of belonging, we can thoroughly examine the program. Were the requirements of the
71
program manageable? Did students feel a connection to the faculty, program staff, and mentor
equally? What about the autobio class did they connect to most? Was the space provided to
TSLC as comprehensive as this study reflects? The student’s voice and experience can add in-
depth knowledge to the research. Though this study’s focus was on how staff develop
programming that supports a sense of belonging among low-income, first-generation commuter
students, the student lens could provide greater insight on the program’s impact.
These challenges and characteristics should be examined distinctively, as they are unique
experiences of low-income, first-generation commuter students, which compounds the inherent
disadvantages of being commuter students. Further research into these issues might yield more
useful information on how to level the playing field for these students. There is an opportunity to
explore how college transition programs can be customized for psychosocial outcomes such as a
sense of belonging. We need to enhance commuter students’ experiences to align their college
careers more closely with those of non-commuter students. That process will likely require
assessing individual experiences to identify trends that can be used to their advantage. We need
to consider socioeconomic status, familial situations, and academic proficiency to provide the
highest quality education for our students.
Conclusion
As the number of first-generation students increases in our institutions, so does the need
to provide critical college transition programs and services. First-generation students, especially
those who commute, have increased responsibilities and identities. Higher education institutions
need to recognize that a college degree will not be a priority in the balancing of their identities
(Jacoby & Garland, 2004; Schuchman, 1974). As higher education practitioners, we need to
develop policy and programming to support these students’ college transition. This study
72
reinforces the importance of college transition programs through the work of UNO’s TSLC
program. The findings indicate that how TSLC program staff onboard students, create a
community, and embed critical resources and programming make a significant difference in their
students’ lives. Program staff members feel a genuine commitment to the work they do and the
students they serve. The commuter student is unique. Developing a more robust understanding of
this student’s experience will be better prepare us to meet our students where they are.
73
References
Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A development theory for higher education. Journal
of College Student Development, 40(5), 518–552.
Astin, A. W. (2001). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. Jossey-Bass.
Barefoot, B. O. (2001). The first-year experience: Are we making it any better? About Campus,
4(6), 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/108648220000400604
Barefoot, B. O., Warnock, C. L., Dickinson, M. P., Richardson, S. E., & Roberts, M. R. (1998).
Exploring the evidence: Reporting outcomes of first-year seminars (Vol. 2). National
Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.
Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. (2017). Comparative case studies: An Innovative Approach. [NJCIE].
Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education, 1(1). Advance online
publication. https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.1929
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–
529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Bers, T., & Younger, D. (2014). The first-year experience in community colleges. In R. D.
Padgett (Ed.), New Directions for Institutional Research, 2014(160), 77–93.
Bowman, N. (2010). Assessing learning and development among diverse college students. New
Directions for Institutional Research, 2010(145), 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.322
Bowman, N. A. (2011). Validity of college self-reported gains at diverse institutions.
Educational Researcher, 40(1), 22–24. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X10397630
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code
development. SAGE.
74
Burlison, M. B. (2015). Nonacademic commitments affecting commuter student involvement
and engagement. New Directions for Student Services, 2015(150), 27–34. Advance online
publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20124
Cabrera, A. F., Castaneda, M. B., Nora, A., & Hengstler, D. (1992). The convergence between
two theories of college persistence. The Journal of Higher Education), 63(2), 143–164.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1992.11778347
Carney, C., McNeish, S., & McColl, J. (2005). The impact of part time employment on students’
health and academic performance: A Scottish perspective. Journal of Further and Higher
Education, 29(4), 307–319.
Castellanos, J., & Gloria, A. M. (2007). Research considerations and theoretical application for
best practices in higher education: Latina/os achieving success. Journal of Hispanic
Higher Education, 6(4), 378–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192707305347
Choy, S. P. (2001). Students whose parents did not go to college: Postsecondary access,
persistence, and attainment. National Center for Education Statistics.
Clark, M. R. (2005). Negotiating the freshman year: Challenges and strategies among first-year
college students. Journal of College Student Development, 46(3), 296–316.
Clauss-Ehlers, C., & Wibrowski, C. (2007). (Review) Building educational resilience and social
support: The effects of the educational opportunities fund program among first- and
second-generation students. Journal of College Student Development, 48(5), 574–584.
Cole, D., Kitchen, J. A., & Kezar, A. (2018). Examining a comprehensive college transition
program: An account of iterative mixed methods longitudinal survey design. Research in
Higher Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-018-
9515-1
75
Cole, D., Newman, C., Park, E. S., & Hypolite, L. (2018, April 13–April 17). Comprehensive
college transition program, mattering and sense of belonging: SEM from year one of a
longitudinal study [Paper presentation]. American Educational Research Association
Annual Conference, New York, NY.
Colyar, J. (2011). Strangers in a strange land: Low-income students and the transition to college.
In A. Kezar (Ed.), Recognizing and serving low-income students in higher education: An
examination of institutional policies, practices, and cultures (pp. 121–138). Routledge.
Cornell, R., & Mosley, M. L. (2006). Intertwining college with real life: The community college
first-year experience. Peer Review: Emerging Trends and Key Debates in Undergraduate
Education, 8(3), 23–25.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.
Cunningham, A., & Leegwater, L. (2011). Minority serving institutions – what can we learn? In
A. Kezar (Ed.), Recognizing and serving low-income students in higher education: An
examination of institutional policies, practices, and cultures (pp. 176–191). Routledge.
Demetrious, C., Meece, J., Eaker-Rich, D., & Powell, C. (2017). The activities, roles, and
relationships of successful first-generation college students. Journal of College Student
Development, 58(1), 19–36.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. SAGE.
76
Dugan, J. P., Garland, J. L., Jacoby, B., & Gasiorski, A. (2008). Understanding commuter
student self-efficacy for leadership: A within-group analysis. NASPA Journal, 45(8),
282–310.
Engle, J., & Lynch, M. G. (2011). Demography is not destiny: What colleges and universities
can do to improve persistence among low-income students. In A. Kezar (Ed.),
Recognizing and serving low-income students in higher education: An examination of
institutional policies, practices, and cultures (pp. 161–175). Routledge.
Engle, J., & Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access: College success for low-income, first-
generation students. The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunities in Higher
Education.
Erisman, W., & Looney, S. (2007). Opening the door to the American dream: Increasing higher
education access and success for immigrants. Institute for Higher Education Policy.
Factbook (2019). UNK Enrollment. www.unk.edu/factbook/enrollment.php
Freeman, T. M, Anderman, L. H. & Jensen, J.M. (2007). Sense of belonging in college freshmen
at the classroom and campus levels. The Journal of Experimental Education, 75(3), 203–
220. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.75.3.203-220
Gianoutsos, D., & Rosser, V. (2014). Is there still a considerable difference? Comparing
residential and commuter student profile characteristics at a public, research, commuter
university. College Student Journal, 48(4), 613–628.
Goodenow, C. (1993). The psychological sense of school membership among adolescents: Scale
development and educational correlates. Psychology in the Schools, 30(1), 79–90.
77
Goodman, K., & Pascarella, E. T. (2006). First-year seminar increase persistence and retention:
A summary of the evidence from how college affects students. Peer Review: Emerging
Trends and Key Debates in Undergraduate Education, 8(3), 26–28.
Harvey, J. J, Luscher, R., Seeba, S., Zheng, C., Tarvestad, T. (2017). UNK Thompson Learning
Communities 2016-2017 Annual Report.
Hoffman, J. L. (2002). The impact if student cocurricular involvement on student success: Racial
and religious differences. Journal of College Student Development, 43(5), 712–739.
Hoffman, M., Richmond, J., Morrow, J., & Salomone, K. (2002). Investigating “sense of
belonging” in first-year college students. Journal of College Student Retention, 4(3),
227–256. https://doi.org/10.2190/DRYC-CXQ9-JQ8V-HT4V
Horn, L., Nevill, S., & Griffith, J. (2006). Profile of undergraduates in U.S. postsecondary
education institutions, 2003-04: with a special analysis of community college students.
National Center for Education Statistics.
Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus
racial climate on Latino college students’ sense of belonging. Sociology of Education,
70(4), 324–345. https://doi.org/10.2307/2673270
Hunter, M.S. (2006). Fostering student learning and success through first-year program. Peer
Review: Emerging trends and key debates in undergraduate students, 8(3), 4-7.
Hunter, M. S., & Murray, K. A. (2007). New frontiers for student affairs professionals: Teaching
and the first-year experience. New Directions for Student Services, 2007(117), 25–34.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.230
78
Ishitani, T. T. (2006). Studying attrition and degree completion behavior among first-generation
college students in the United States. The Journal of Higher Education, 77, 861–885.
https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2006.0042
Ishitani, T. T., & Reid, A. M. (2015). First-to-second-year persistence profile of commuter
students. New Directions for Student Services, 2015(150), 13–26. Advance online
publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20123
Jacoby, B. (1989). ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report: Vol. 7. The student as a commuter:
Developing a comprehensive institutional response. School of Education and Human
Development, The George Washington University.
Jacoby, B. (2000). Why involve commuter students in learning? New Directions for Higher
Education, 2000(109), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.10901
Jacoby, B. (2014). Engaging commuter and part-time students. In S. J. Quaye & S. R. Harper
(Eds.), Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical
approaches for diverse populations (pp. 289–305). Routledge.
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
Jehangir, R. R. (2010). Higher education and first-generation students: Cultivating community,
voice and place for the new majority. Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230114678
Jonassen, D. H., & Hernandez-Serrano, J. (2002). Case-Based reasoning and instructional
design: Using stories to support problem solving. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 50(2), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504994
79
Kezar, A. J. (2000). Summer bridge programs supporting all students. Institute for Education
Policy Studies. Graduate School of Education and Human Development, the George
Washington University.
Kim, A., Choi, S., & Park, S. (2018). Heterogeneity in first-generation college students
influencing academic success and adjustment to higher education. The Social Science
Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2018.12.002
Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for
effective educational practices. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 35(2), 24–32.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380309604090
Kuh, G. D. (2008). Why integration and engagement are essential to effective educational
practice in the twenty-first century. Peer Review : Emerging Trends and Key Debates in
Undergraduate Education, 10(4), 27–28.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/216602482/
Kuh, G. D., Gonyea, R. M., & Palmer, M. (2001). The disengaged commuter student: Fact or
fiction? Commuter Perspective, 27(1), 2–5.
Kuh, G. D., & Hu, S. (2011). The effects of student-faculty interaction in the 1990s. The Review
of Higher Education, 24(3), 309–332.
Lee, N. E. (2018). The part-time student experience: Its influence on student engagement,
perceptions, and retention. Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education, 30(1), 1–
18.
Levine, J. H. (1999). Learning communities: New structures, new partnerships for learning.
(Monograph No. 26). National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and
Students in Transition.
80
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.
Liu, R., & Jung, L. (1980). The commuter student and student satisfaction. Research in Higher
Education, 12(3), 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00976093
Lotkowski, A. A, Robbins, S.B., & Noeth, R.J. (2004). The role of academic and non-academic
factors in improving college retention. American College Testing ACT Inc.
Lundberg, C. A. (2003). The influence of time-limitations, faculty, and peer relationships on
adult student learning: A causal model. The Journal of Higher Education, 74(6), 665–
688. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2003.0045
Martin, G. L., & Kilgo, C. A. (2015). Exploring the impact of commuting to campus on
psychological well-being. New Directions for Student Services, 2015(150), 35–43.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20125
Maslow, A. H. (1968). Towards a psychology of being (2nd ed). Van Nostrand.
Mayhew, M. J., Pascarella, E.T., Terenzini, P.T. (2016). How college affects students. Volume 3,
21
st
Century evidence that higher education works. Jossey-Bass.
Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Applied social research methods series: Vol. 41. Qualitative research
design: An interactive approach. SAGE.
McMillan, J. J., & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in education: A conceptual introduction (5th
ed.). Longman.
Mehta, S. S., Newbold, J. J., & O’Rourke, M. A. (2011). Why do first-generation students fail?
College Student Journal, 45(1), 20–35.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implement.
Jossey-Bass.
81
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2005). Exploring different dimensions of student
engagement: 2005 annual survey results. http://nsse.indiana.edu/pdf/NSSE2005_annual_
report.pdf
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2014a). Characteristics of postsecondary students.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_csb.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014b). Profile of undergraduate students: 2011-2012.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED581717.pdf
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2018). Characteristics of postsecondary students.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_csb.asp
Newbold, J. J. (2015). Lifestyle Challenges for Commuter Students. New Directions for Student
Services, 2015(150), 79–86. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20129
Newbold, J. J., Mehta, S. S., & Forbus, P. (2011). Commuter students: Involvement and
identification with an institution of higher education. Academy of Educational Leadership
Journal, 15(2), 141–153.
Nunez, A., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., & Carroll, C. (1998) First-generation students: Undergraduates
whose parents never enrolled in postsecondary education. National Center for
Educational Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98082.pdf
O’Keefe, P. (2013). A sense of belonging: Improving student retention. College Student Journal,
47(4), 605–613.
Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review of
Educational Research, 70(3), 323–367. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070003323
82
Pascarella, E. T. (1984). Reassessing the effects of living on-campus versus commuting to
college: A causal modeling. The Review of Higher Education, 7(3), 247–260.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights
from twenty years of research (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Pascarella, E. T., Smart, J., Ethington, C., & Nettles, M. (1987). The influence of college on self-
concept: A consideration of race and gender differences. American Educational Research
Journal, 24, 49–77. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312024001049
Pascarella, E., Terenzini, P. T., & Wolfle, L. M. (1986). Orientation to College and Freshman
Year Persistence - Withdrawal Decisions. The Journal of Higher Education, 57, 155–
175. https://doi.org/10.2307/1981479
Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C., & Terenzini, P. T. (2004). First-generation
college students. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(3), 249–284.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2004.11772256
Pike, G. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). First- and second-generation college students: A comparison
of their engagement and intellectual development. The Journal of Higher Education,
73(3), 276–300. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2005.0021
Plummer, K. (1983). Documents of life: An introduction to the problems and literature of a
humanistic method. Unwin Hyman.
Porter, S. R., & Swing, R. L. (2006). Understanding how first-year seminars affect persistence.
Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 89–109. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-005-8153-6
Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. SAGE.
83
Sablan, J. R., & Tierney, W. G. (2014). The challenge of summer bridge programs. The
American Behavioral Scientist, 58(8), 1035–1050.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213515234
Schuchman, H. (1974). Special tasks of commuter students. The Personnel and Guidance
Journal, 52(7), 465–470. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2164-4918.1974.tb03749.x
Soria, K. M., & Stebleton, M. J. (2012). First-generation students’ academic engagement and
retention. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(6), 673–685.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.666735
Stebleton, M., & Soria, K. (2012). Breaking down barriers: Academic obstacles of first-
generation students at research universities. The Learning Assistance Review, 17(2), 7–
19.
Stitt, R. L., & Winsor, D. L. (2014). A narrative inquiry: The experience of first-generation
college students. SAGE Research Methods Cases.,
https://doi.org/10.4135/978144627305014533912
Strayhorn, T. L. (2012). College students’ sense of belonging: a key to educational success for
all students. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203118924
Taylor, K., Harvey, J.J., Campbell, J., Seeba, S., Zheng, C., Tarvestad, T. (2018). UNK
Thompson Learning Communities 2017-2018 Annual Report.
Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Yaeger, P. M., Pascarella, A. N., & Nora, A. (1996). First-
generation college students: Characteristics, experiences, and cognitive development.
Research in Higher Education, 37(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01680039
The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation. (n.d.). The William H. Thompson Scholars Learning
Community. https://buffettscholarships.org/learning-community
84
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and curses of student attrition.
University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and curses of student attrition (2nd
ed.). The University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1999). Taking retention seriously: Rethinking the first year of college. NACADA
Journal, 19(2), 5–9. https://doi.org/10.12930/0271-9517-19.2.5
Tinto, V. (2007). Research and practice of student retention: What’s next? Journal of College
Student Retention, 8(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.2190/4YNU-4TMB-22DJ-AN4W
Tinto, V. (2012). Completing college: Rethinking institutional action. The University of Chicago
Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226804545.001.0001
Tinto, V. (2014). Completing college: Rethinking institutional action (2nd ed.). The University
of Chicago Press.
Atherton, M. C. (2014). Academic preparedness of first-generation college students: Different
perspectives. Journal of College Student Development, 55(8), 824-829.
Thompson Learning Communities, U. N. K. (2017). Thompson Learning Communities 2016-
2017 Annual Report. University of Nebraska.
Thompson Learning Communities, U. N. O. (2018). Thompson Learning Communities 2017-
2018 Annual Report. University of Nebraska.
Vaccaro, A., Daly-Cano, M., & Newman, B. (2015). A sense of belonging among college
student with disabilities: An emergent theoretical model. Journal of College Student
Development, 56(7), 670–686. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2015.0072
85
Vander Schee, B. A. (2011). Changing general education perceptions through perspectives and
the interdisciplinary first-year seminar. International Journal on Teaching and Learning
in Higher Education, 23(3), 382–387.
Ward, L., Siegel, M. J., & Davenport, Z. (2012). First-generation college students:
Understanding and improving the experience from recruitment to commencement.
Jossey-Bass.
Wilmes, M. B., & Quade, S. L. (1986). Perspectives on programming for commuters: Examples
of good practices. NASPA Journal, 24(1), 25–35.
86
Appendix A: Definitions of Key Terms
CODES DESCRIPTION NOTES
First-generation
college student
(FIRST-
GENERATION
STUDENTS)
A student whose parents did not earn a
college degree
Definition as used by TSLC
program.
Low-income
student
Students identified as having an
estimated family contribution of $10,000
or less.
Definition as used by TSLC
program.
Commuter student A student who resides off-campus
Support system
A student’s access to individuals or
group of individuals who may provide a
form of care to the individual.
Family, friends, classmates,
faculty, staff - play an
important role for FIRST-
GENERATION STUDENTS.
These individuals can have a
great impact in the student’s
ability to persist.
Part-time student A student enrolled in less than 12 units.
Part-time enrollment provides
students with a different
academic experience than for
those enrolled full-time
Sense of
Belonging
A feeling of acceptance as a member of
a group/community.
A form of integration that can
be fostered by peers, faculty,
program staff. Critical for
first-generation students’
ability to persist.
Informal
engagement
Interaction that takes place in an
unofficial, casual setting.
Form of interactions that
plays an important role in
understanding impact and
building of belonging for
first-generation students
Social integration
How strongly a newcomer is
incorporated into a social
structure/community
Form of interactions that
plays an important role in
understanding impact and
building of belonging for
first-generation students
Formal
interactions
Communication that takes place in a
structured capacity (i.e. classroom,
workshop)
form of interactions that plays
an important role in
understanding impact and
building of belonging for
first-generation students
87
Informal
interactions
Communication that take place in a
casual, non-structured setting.
form of interactions that plays
an important role in
understanding impact and
building of belonging for
FIRST-GENERATION
STUDENTS
Flexibility
Willingness to change or be easily
modified to fit a need.
Providing access through
flexible services and
engagement opportunities for
commuter students
Community
A group of individuals with common
characteristics and interests.
Building a sense of belonging
on campus for first-generation
students who commute
Encouragement
Giving someone (student) confidence,
support, care, or hope.
Fostering validation for first-
generation students, especially
for those that commute
Accessibility
People and/or resources that are capable
of being reached, easily attainable.
Flexible to the commuter
student and their ability to
gain access to individuals and
support services given their
lack of time
Faculty
interaction
Any form of interaction that takes place
between student and faculty member
(formal or informal)
Provides validation to the
first-generation students
Peer interaction
Any form of interaction that takes place
between two students (formal or
informal)
Provides validation to the
first-generation students
Part-time student A student enrolled bellowed 10 units
Will signal commuter student,
likely with full-time job
Working student Any form of off-campus employment
Will signal likelihood
commuter student
Student with
dependents
Any form of dependents the students
have
Will signal likelihood
commuter student
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Exploring faculty-student interactions in a comprehensive college transition program for low-income and first-generation college students
PDF
Program customization in a comprehensive college transition program for low-income students
PDF
The use of students funds of knowledge to increase college success among low-income and first-generation students
PDF
Support service representatives impact on first-generation low-income community college students
PDF
Oppression of remedial reading community college students and their academic success rates: student perspectives of the unquantified challenges faced
PDF
The mentoring experience: a case study of a mentoring program for first-generation students transitioning to a postsecondary institution
PDF
Impact of academic scholarships on persistence of first-generation low-income students
PDF
And still we rise: examining the strengths of first-generation college students
PDF
Latinx commuter students who have persisted and their sense of belonging
PDF
Staff members’ transfer of social capital to first-generation, low-income Latino/a students of Mexican descent
PDF
Everything you need to prepare for college in the palm of your hand: a mobile app for low income, middle school students
PDF
College readiness: terms and conditions may apply
PDF
The lived experience of first-generation latino students in remedial education and navigating the transfer pathway
PDF
Families first: supporting first-generation college students’ families
PDF
Transfer first-generation college students: the role of academic advisors in degree completion
PDF
Navigating the academy and beyond: an examination of major and career self-efficacy of Latin* first-generation college students
PDF
First-generation student retention and completion at a California community college: evaluation study
PDF
A school leadership approach to building a college-going culture for low-income Latinx students: high school case study
PDF
Developing a sense of belonging and persistence through mentoring for first-generation students
PDF
First-generation college students and persistence to a degree: an evaluation study
Asset Metadata
Creator
Oukayan-Sagherian, Tzoler
(author)
Core Title
Designing college transition programs for low-income, first-generation commuter students
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
12/22/2020
Defense Date
09/16/2020
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
college transition,commuter student,first-generation,low-income,OAI-PMH Harvest
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Kezar, Adrianna (
committee chair
), Perez, Rosemary (
committee member
), Tobey, Patricia (
committee member
)
Creator Email
oukayan@usc.edu,toukayan@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-415288
Unique identifier
UC11668418
Identifier
etd-OukayanSag-9229.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-415288 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-OukayanSag-9229.pdf
Dmrecord
415288
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Oukayan-Sagherian, Tzoler
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 a...
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
Tags
college transition
commuter student
first-generation
low-income