A FIRST-YEAR COMMUTER STUDENT NETWORK FRAMEWORK FOR STUDENT SUCCESS: A CASE STUDY by Benedict Mathole Macwele: 2018287900 [Master’s Degree in Social Science, University of KwaZulu-Natal, 2016] [Thesis] Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Higher Education Studies in the Department of Curriculum Studies and Higher Education Faculty of Education UNIVERSITY OF THE FREE STATE Supervisor: Dr S.M. Holtzhausen Co-supervisor: Dr W.P. Wahl UNIVERSITY OF THE FREE STATE 2024 ii Declaration I, Benedict Mathole Macwele (2018287900), declare that the thesis, A FIRST- YEAR COMMUTER STUDENT NETWORK FRAMEWORK FOR STUDENT SUCCESS: A CASE STUDY, submitted for the qualification of Doctor of Philosophy in Higher Education Studies at the University of the Free State, is my independent work. Complete references have indicated and acknowledged all the references I have used. I further declare that I have not previously submitted this work at another university or faculty to obtain a qualification. 25 October 2024 SIGNED DATE iii Dedication I dedicate this study to my wife, Lungile, and my three children, Mandisa, Minenhle and Ntando. I spent many nights away, and I know it was difficult for all of us. I express my deepest gratitude to my parents, uBaba S.A.M. Macwele and uMama S.J. Macwele. The journey from an undergraduate to a doctoral degree was not easy. I am now a family man, but I started this journey as a teenager who had no idea what my path to success would be like. Baba and Mama, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart. I would be nothing without the foundation you provided. To my siblings, Nonhlanhla, Jeyi (brother), Sayi, Ndu, Philo and Sipho, thank you so much. You will always have a special place in my heart. To my nieces and nephews, Lindo, Sandile, Ntuthuko, Oluhle, Azo, Amahle and Sinaye, I love all of you. iv Acknowledgements I am grateful to the following people: My supervisor, Dr S.M. Holtzhausen, for your insights, guidance, advice, support, and patience during my studies. It has been a long and challenging journey. My co-supervisor, Dr W.P. Wahl, for your valuable insights, support, and guidance. To all the participants in this study, you were all amazing and provided valuable input. Thank you to all those who assisted me in recruiting participants, particularly Lindokuhle Mthembu, for his help. Finally, thank you to all those who helped me with venues to engage with study participants. Thank you, all. v Abstract First-year commuter students face various challenges as they transition and adjust to the academic, social, and emotional environments of university life. These challenges highlight the crucial role of peer relationships and networks, as informed by Tinto's student integration theory. Building on these conclusions, this study's primary objective was to develop a framework for a supportive peer network that addresses the academic, emotional, and social needs of first-year commuter students. To achieve this, I conducted an analysis of key documents, particularly annual reports, from seven South African universities to gain insights into their support systems for first-year commuter students. These analyses revealed that while several programmes catered to the needs of first-year commuter students (see 5.2 and 5.3), the primary focus was on academic support. The integration of social and emotional well-being for these students was notably underemphasised, with limited evidence on how these programmes influenced the adjustment of first-year commuter students. Chapter 6 of this study serves as the focal point of analysis, exploring the success stories and best practices related to the academic, social and emotional transitions of first-year commuter students. It also examines the role of peer mentor programmes in supporting their adjustment. During the empirical research, eight focus-group discussions were conducted with first-year commuter students at the University of the Free State (UFS). These discussions were organised by gender and campus, following an appreciative inquiry framework that aims to highlight and build on positive experiences and strengths. The findings underscore the critical role of peer relationships and support in addressing the challenges faced by first-year commuter students during their transition to university life. In the Discovery step of the AI 4D framework, participants highlighted various success stories and best practices that facilitated their adjustment (see 6.2). Conversely, in the Dreaming step, participants identified opportunities for growth to improve the adjustment experience for first-year commuter students (see 6.6). Building on these insights, the Designing (see 7.2) vi and Delivery steps (see 7.4) proposed a five-pillar mentoring framework and an implementation plan. By proposing the five-pillar mentoring framework and the accompanying implementation plan (see 7.4.1), the study offers a practical solution to enhance the effectiveness of peer mentor programmes. This framework aims to create a supportive peer network that ensures first-year commuter students receive the necessary guidance, support, and resources to thrive throughout their university journey. Keywords: Appreciative inquiry, case study approach, first-year commuter students, support, peer network framework, student success. vii List of Acronyms AI Appreciative Inquiry BA Bachelor of Arts CHE Council of Higher Education COVID-19 Coronavirus disease 2019 CTL Centre for Teaching and Learning DACD Data Analytics Capacity Development DUT Durban University of Technology ECP Extended Curriculum Programmes FYE First-Year Experience FYN First-Year Navigator FYS First-Year Seminars GDP Gross Domestic Product GTER Gross Tertiary Enrolment Rate ITP Integrated Transformation Plan NBT National Benchmark Test4 NDP National Development Plan NMU Nelson Mandela University NSFAS National Student Financial Aid Scheme NSS National Student Survey NWU North-West University OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PASS Programme for Academic Student Success RADAR Risk Analysis and Detection to Assist and Retain RID Reading in the Discipline RSA DHET Republic of South Africa, Department of Higher Education and Training viii RSA DPME Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation SAIDE South African Institute for Distance Education SI Supplementary instruction SUN Stellenbosch University TUT Tshwane University of Technology UFS University of the Free State UJ University of Johannesburg UK United Kingdom UN SDG United Nations, Sustainable Development Goals USA United States of America USAf Universities South Africa ix TABLE OF CONTENTS Declaration ....................................................................................................................... ii Dedication ....................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... iv Abstract.. .......................................................................................................................... v List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................. vii List of Tables ................................................................................................................. xvii List of Figures ................................................................................................................ xvii Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND, AND CONTEXT ............................... 1 1.1 SETTING THE SCENE OF THE STUDY ........................................................... 1 1.1.1 Higher education access and success: the global context ............................... 2 1.1.2 Higher education access and success: the African context .............................. 3 1.1.3 Higher education access and success in South Africa ..................................... 4 1.1.4 The institutional context of access and success at the case study university ... 6 1.1.5 Context of first-year commuter students .......................................................... 6 1.1.6 Context of a first-year peer network in the UFS ............................................... 9 1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ................................................................... 11 1.3 TINTO’S INTEGRATION THEORY AS A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ....... 12 1.4 AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ........................................................ 13 1.5 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ............................................................................... 14 1.6 DEFINITION OF TERMS ................................................................................. 15 1.6.1 First-year commuter student .......................................................................... 15 1.6.2 Peer network ................................................................................................. 15 1.6.3 Success for first-year commuters .................................................................. 15 1.6.4 First-year student network ............................................................................. 15 1.7 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ................................................. 16 1.7.1 Interpretive paradigm and higher education as a field of study ...................... 16 1.7.2 Qualitative research approach ....................................................................... 16 x 1.7.3 Appreciative Inquiry (AI) into the UFS peer mentor programme ..................... 17 1.7.4 Qualitative research methods ........................................................................ 17 1.7.5 Data collection through qualitative inquiry ...................................................... 17 1.7.5.1 Document analysis ....................................................................................... 18 1.7.5.2 Focus-group discussions at the case study university ................................... 18 1.7.6 Selection of research participants .................................................................. 19 1.8 DATA ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION, REPORTING AND QUALITY ASSURANCE .................................................................................................. 19 1.9 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................................... 20 1.10 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY .................................................................... 21 1.11 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ....................................................................... 21 1.12 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 21 Chapter 2 UNDERSTANDING FIRST-YEAR COMMUTER STUDENTS ................ 23 2.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 23 2.2 HIGHER EDUCATION TRANSFORMATION ................................................... 24 2.2.1 Expanding access to higher education .......................................................... 24 2.2.2 Large classes because of massification ......................................................... 26 2.2.3 Increasing students’ chances of success ....................................................... 27 2.3 DEFINING A FIRST-YEAR COMMUTER STUDENT ....................................... 28 2.4 BENEFITS OF FIRST-YEAR COMMUTER STUDENTS ................................. 29 2.5 CHALLENGES OF FIRST-YEAR COMMUTER STUDENTS ........................... 30 2.5.1 The living environment of commuter students ................................................ 30 2.5.2 Underpreparedness of commuter students .................................................... 32 2.5.3 Commuter student engagement .................................................................... 33 2.5.4 Transportation issues for first-year commuter students.................................. 34 2.5.5 Commuter student funding support ................................................................ 36 2.5.6 Adapting to institutional cultures .................................................................... 38 2.5.7 Lack of space on campus for commuter students .......................................... 39 2.5.8 Influence of COVID-19 on commuter students ............................................... 40 xi 2.6 SUPPORTING FIRST-YEAR COMMUTER STUDENTS VIA PEER NETWORKS FOR HOLISTIC SUCCESS .............................................................................. 41 2.6.1 First-year peer mentorship ............................................................................. 42 2.6.2 Value and importance of peer mentorship ..................................................... 44 2.6.3 The emotional value of peer mentorship ........................................................ 45 2.6.4 The social value of peer mentorship .............................................................. 45 2.6.5 The academic value of peer mentorship ........................................................ 46 2.6.6 Mentor and mentee relationships ................................................................... 46 2.6.7 An integrated system of peer support ............................................................ 47 2.6.8 Challenges regarding peer mentorship .......................................................... 48 2.7 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 48 Chapter 3 THEORY OF INTEGRATING FIRST-YEAR COMMUTERS INTO THE UNIVERSITY ENVIRONMENT VIA A PEER MENTORSHIP PROGRAMME... 51 3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 51 3.2 THEORIES OF STUDENT SUCCESS AND DROPOUT .................................. 51 3.2.1 Spady’s theory and first-year commuter students .......................................... 52 3.2.2 Astin’s Student Involvement Theory and first-year commuter students .......... 54 3.2.3 Bean and Metzner's conceptual theory and first-year commuter students ..... 55 3.3 TINTO’S STUDENT INTEGRATION THEORY AND FIRST-YEAR COMMUTER STUDENTS ..................................................................................................... 57 3.3.1 The separation stage of first-year commuter students ................................... 57 3.3.2 The transition stage of first-year commuter students ..................................... 59 3.3.3 The integration stage for first-year commuter students .................................. 61 3.4 TINTO’S THEORY AND PEER MENTORSHIP ............................................... 62 3.5 THE CRITIQUE AGAINST TINTO’S CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK CONCERNING FIRST-YEAR COMMUTERS .................................................. 63 3.6 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 65 Chapter 4 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ....................................... 66 4.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 66 4.2 INTERPRETIVE PARADIGM AND HIGHER EDUCATION FIELD OF STUDY 67 xii 4.3 RESEARCH APPROACH ................................................................................ 69 4.4 APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY (AI) OF PEER MENTOR PROGRAMME ............... 70 4.5 DATA COLLECTION METHODS ..................................................................... 74 4.5.1 Document review and analysis ...................................................................... 74 4.5.2 Focus-groups interviews ................................................................................ 76 4.6 SELECTION OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS ............................................... 77 4.7 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY PARTICIPANTS ................................................... 78 4.8 DATA ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION, REPORTING, AND QUALITY ASSURANCE .................................................................................................. 80 4.8.1 Braun and Clarke analysis framework ........................................................... 81 4.9 SIGNIFICANCE/VALUE OF THE PROPOSED RESEARCH ........................... 83 4.10 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................................... 84 4.11 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 85 Chapter 5 RESULTS OF DOCUMENT ANALYSIS ON SUPPORT PROGRAMMES FOR FIRST-YEAR COMMUTERS IN SELECTED SOUTH AFRICAN UNIVERSITIES ................................................................................................ 87 5.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 87 5.2 CORE FIRST-YEAR PROGRAMMES ACROSS SOUTH AFRICAN UNIVERSITIES ................................................................................................ 88 5.2.1 First-year commuter student orientation ........................................................ 89 5.2.1.1 University-Specific Orientation Programmes ................................................. 90 5.2.1.2 Common features of University-Specific Orientation Programmes ................ 92 5.2.1.3 Challenges of University-Specific Orientation Programmes .......................... 92 5.2.2 Academic advising and commuter students ................................................... 94 5.2.2.1 Key aspects related to Academic Advising programmes ............................... 94 5.2.2.2 A mutual challenge related to Academic Advising programmes .................... 95 5.2.3 Peer learning academic support .................................................................... 96 5.2.3.1 Key aspects of peer learning academic support in selected South African Universities ............................................................................................................... 96 xiii 5.2.3.2 Similarities, diversities, and challenges with peer learning academic support at selected South African universities ........................................................................... 97 5.2.4 First-year seminars and commuter students .................................................. 98 5.2.4.1 First-year seminar (FYS) programmes at selected South African universities 99 5.2.4.2 Other transitional programmes at selected South African universities ........... 99 5.2.4.3 Challenges during online transition for FYS ................................................ 100 5.3 EXCLUSIVE SMALL-SCALE FIRST-YEAR PROGRAMMES AT SELECTED SOUTH AFRICAN UNIVERSITIES ................................................................ 100 5.3.1 Peer mentorship programme ....................................................................... 101 5.3.1.1 Benefits of peer mentoring .......................................................................... 101 5.3.1.2 Challenges with peer mentorship programmes ........................................... 102 5.3.2 Writing and reading programmes for first-year students ............................... 102 5.3.3 Student success webinars for first-year commuter students ........................ 102 5.3.4 Student success coaching for first-year commuter students ........................ 102 5.4 DOCUMENT ANALYSIS OF STRATEGIC PLANS FOCUSING ON STUDENT SUCCESS ..................................................................................................... 103 5.4.1 Student success initiatives at selected South African universities ................ 104 5.5 REFLECTION ON THE SUPPORT PROGRAMMES ..................................... 105 5.6 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 106 Chapter 6 PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF EMPIRICAL FINDINGS THROUGH APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY (AI) .................................. 108 6.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 108 6.2 AI 4D CYCLE’S FIRST STEP: DISCOVERING .............................................. 108 6.3 ACADEMIC ADJUSTMENT OF FIRST-YEAR COMMUTER STUDENTS ..... 111 6.3.1 Success stories in the academic adjustment of first-year commuter students112 6.3.1.1 Success stories regarding family support for first-year commuter students . 112 6.3.1.2 Success stories regarding collaborative Learning Partnerships .................. 115 6.3.1.3 Success stories regarding supportive lecturers and tutors .......................... 116 6.3.2 Best practices in the academic adjustment of first-year commuter students 119 6.3.2.1 First-year orientation as best practice for academic support ....................... 119 xiv 6.3.2.2 Peer mentor programme as best practice for academic support ................. 120 6.4 SOCIAL ADJUSTMENT OF FIRST-YEAR COMMUTER STUDENTS ........... 123 6.4.1 Success stories in the social adjustment of first-year commuter students .... 124 6.4.1.1 Interpersonal skills as success stories ........................................................ 124 6.4.1.2 Living close to the university and high school friends as success stories .... 127 6.4.2 Best practices in the social adjustment of first-year commuter students ...... 129 6.4.2.1 Day residence as best practice for social adjustment .................................. 129 6.4.2.2 Service-learning modules and faculty events as best practices for social adjustment .............................................................................................................. 132 6.4.2.3 First-year orientation as best practice for social adjustment ........................ 134 6.4.2.4 Peer mentor programme as best practice for social adjustment .................. 136 6.5 EMOTIONAL ADJUSTMENT OF FIRST-YEAR COMMUTER STUDENTS ... 139 6.5.1 Success stories in the emotional adjustment of first-year commuter students 140 6.5.1.1 Living with Family ....................................................................................... 140 6.5.1.2 Supportive friends ....................................................................................... 142 6.5.2 Best practices in the emotional adjustment of first-year commuter students 144 6.5.2.1 Peer mentors' emotional support ................................................................ 144 6.6 AI 4D CYCLE’S SECOND STEP: DREAMING .............................................. 146 6.6.1 Opportunities for growth in academic adjustment ........................................ 147 6.6.1.1 Managing first-year academic overload ...................................................... 147 6.6.1.2 Enhancing transitional support between high school and university teaching and learning approaches ........................................................................................ 149 6.6.1.3 Preparing first-year students for large in-person classes ............................ 152 6.6.1.4 Changing class times from late to early ...................................................... 153 6.6.1.5 Preparing first years for online classes ....................................................... 156 6.6.1.6 Strengthening academic advising ............................................................... 158 6.6.2 Opportunities for growth in social adjustment .............................................. 159 6.6.2.1 Language as an opportunity for social adjustment ...................................... 159 6.6.2.2 Opportunity for growth in diversities on campuses ...................................... 162 xv 6.6.2.3 Opportunity for social engagement of first-year commuter students ............ 164 6.6.2.4 Personal traits and opportunity for social adjustment .................................. 166 6.6.3 Opportunities for growth in emotional adjustment of first-year commuter students ....................................................................................................... 169 6.6.3.1 Opportunities to establish meaningful relationships .................................... 169 6.6.3.2 Opportunity for growth in university support for commuting students from disadvantaged backgrounds ................................................................................... 174 6.6.3.3 Opportunity to improve stress-coping mechanisms for new students. ......... 175 6.6.3.4 Opportunity to develop an independent identity .......................................... 176 6.6.3.5 Socio-economic opportunities ..................................................................... 180 6.7 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 180 Chapter 7 AI 4D CYCLE’S THIRD AND ADAPTED FOURTH STEP .................... 182 7.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 182 7.2 AI 4D CYCLE’S THIRD STEP: DESIGNING STEP ........................................ 182 7.2.1 Evaluation of the best practice activities and initiatives that engaged commuter students in the case study university environment ....................................... 182 7.3 Opportunities for growth in the Peer Mentor Programme ............................... 185 7.3.1 Relationship between peer mentors and mentees ....................................... 185 7.3.2 Peer mentor monitoring and evaluation ....................................................... 187 7.3.3 Sensitive gender, power and ethical dynamic concerns within peer mentor practices ...................................................................................................... 188 7.3.4 Marketing of the peer mentorship programme ............................................. 188 7.4 AI 4D CYCLE’S FOURTH STEP: ADAPTED DELIVERY STEP..................... 189 7.4.1 A framework for a peer network that supports first-year commuter students 189 7.5 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................. 193 7.5.1 Enhancement of mentor-mentee relationships ............................................. 194 7.5.2 Monitoring and evaluation ............................................................................ 194 7.5.3 Gender, power and ethical dynamics ........................................................... 195 7.5.4 Marketing and awareness ............................................................................ 195 7.6 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 195 xvi REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 197 Appendix A: Gatekeeper approvals5F .......................................................................... 235 Appendix B: Research study information and consent form .......................................... 250 Appendix C: Ethical clearance ...................................................................................... 256 Appendix C1: Ethical clearance renewal 2022 .............................................................. 257 Appendix C2: Ethical clearance renewal 2023 .............................................................. 258 Appendix C3: Ethical clearance renewal 2024 .............................................................. 259 Appendix D: Focus-group discussion guide .................................................................. 260 Appendix E: Language editing ...................................................................................... 262 xvii List of Tables Table 4.1: Description of study participants ......................................................................... 78 Table 6.1: Themes and subthemes obtained from thematic analysis ................................ 110 Table 7.1 Selected evaluation of the peer mentor programme and presenting opportunities for growth .......................................................................................................................... 183 List of Figures Figure 3.1: Spady’s theory (Spady, 1971) ........................................................................... 53 Figure 3.2: Astin’s I.E.O theory (Wah et al., 2022). ............................................................. 54 Figure 5.1: Word cloud of strategic plans regarding student success ................................ 104 Figure 7.1: First-year commuter student network framework for student success ............. 190 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND, AND CONTEXT 1.1 SETTING THE SCENE OF THE STUDY Worldwide, including in South Africa, the high demand for higher education has increased dramatically (Valavanidis, 2022; Van Zyl and Fourie-Malherbe, 2021; Tight, 2019). For example, Valavanidis (2022:1) highlighted this global demand for higher education as "estimated enrolment in 2015 of 214 million versus approximately 600 million in 2040”.This expansion has led to more students living off-campus (i.e., escalation of commuter students) due to limited on-campus accommodation and infrastructure (Van Zyl and Fourie-Malherbe, 2021; Thomsen and Eikemo, 2010) and financial constraints (Van Zyl, 2018; Spaull, 2013). Despite this trend, residential universities like the University of the Free State (UFS) have primarily focused on supporting resident students, while neglecting commuter students (Van Zyl, 2018; Lemmens, 2010). This neglect has created a knowledge gap regarding interventions supporting commuter students' success, such as peer mentoring programmes (Thomas and Jones, 2017; Lewin and Mawoyo, 2014; see 2.6). This knowledge gap emphasises the need for further studies in this area, especially in South Africa, where research on commuter students is limited (McConney, 2019; Van Zyl, 2018). Thus, this study proposed to develop a framework for a supportive peer network for first-year commuter students that addresses their academic, emotional, and social needs (see Chapter 7). Additionally, the study provides a comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing access and success for commuter students by examining global, African, and South African perspectives. This approach allows for a broader exploration of the access and success phenomenon and provides a contextual framework for the study. The following paragraphs explore the concepts of access and success from global (see 1.1.1), African (see 1.1.2), and South African (see 1.1.3), including UFS perspectives. The study also explores issues associated with the rise in commuting students due to massification (see 1.1.4). Peer networks' potential to address commuter students' success difficulties is also explored (see 1.1.5). 2 1.1.1 Higher education access and success: the global context Globalisation and the emergence of the information economy have been among the fundamental forces behind this need for higher education (Motala, 2017). Furthermore, Nascimento, Mutize and Chinchilla (2020) contend that factors such as the expansion of distance education institutions, the growth of the middle class, and the establishment of private institutions have contributed to the rise in demand for access to higher education over the past two decades. Moreover, according to the British Council (2012), the population increase of people aged 18 to 24 in countries like China, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Ethiopia, the Philippines, and Pakistan has further fuelled the need for higher education. In this case, higher education participation globally is measured by the involvement of 18–24-year-olds in any given country (Wright and Horta, 2018). Higher education offers numerous advantages for individuals and society. Earning a degree is strongly linked to better career prospects, increased productivity, improved health, and overall well-being (Nascimento et al., 2020; Atherton, Dumangane and Whitty, 2016). Embedded in the narrative of global access to higher education is the perception that “knowledge and learning are key universal rights of the global community” (Mense et al., 2018:48) that benefit society (Mense et al., 2018). Wealthy nations invest significantly in higher education to maintain their competitive edge (Tremblay, Lalancette and Roseveare, 2012). The global higher education sector has responded to the need for improved access. International higher education has transitioned from elite systems, which catered to a small percentage of 15% or fewer high-school graduates, to mass systems, where a larger proportion of up to 50% of the population has access to higher education (Tight, 2019). This shift from elite to mass systems has been observed in developed countries across Western Europe, North America, Australia, and Asia (Gidley, Hampson and Wheeler, 2010). The global higher education Gross Tertiary Enrolment Rate (GTER) has grown significantly. UNESCO (2024) reports that there were approximately 254 million students enrolled in higher education worldwide in 2024, more than double the number from 20 years ago. Projections suggest that by 2040, the GTER will reach 594,1 million 3 (Calderon, 2018). The GTER increased from 19% to 38% between 2000 and 2018 (Nascimento et al., 2020). This increase is indicative that global enrolment is moving towards universal access. For example, higher education enrolment in Japan has reached a universal status, with over 50% of school leavers accessing higher education (Huang, 2012). Also, South Korea's GTER of school leavers was well over 50% in 2013, making it the leader in higher education participation worldwide (Marginson, 2016). Canada has also achieved over 50% GTER (Tremblay et al., 2012). To this end, Canada, Japan, and South Korea are meeting the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) of universal access for all. However, the challenge lies in the gap between enrolment and graduation rates. (Nascimento et al., 2020). Institutions face the dilemma of ensuring that the students they admit complete their studies and graduate within the expected duration of their programmes (see 2.1). Data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) show that, on average, 40% of new entrants to a bachelor's level programme graduate within the expected duration, while two in ten leave without acquiring their degrees (OECD, 2019). Dropout rates vary across countries, with Spain and Colombia experiencing relatively high dropout rates. In Spain, one out of five students drop out of university (Arce, Crespo and Míguez-Álvarez, 2015). In Colombia, “around 37% of students who begin a Bachelor of Arts (BA) programme drop out of the higher education system altogether” (Sandoval-Palis et al., 2020:2). While access to higher education has improved globally, the situation in Africa presents unique challenges. 1.1.2 Higher education access and success: the African context Mahomedbhai (2017) argues that Sub-Saharan African higher education has experienced institutional massification. Governments require institutions to increase student intake without funding to improve the infrastructure. For example, “annual expenditure per higher education student in Africa decreased from US$2 900 per year in 1990 to US$2 000 in 2006” (McCowan, 2018:129). Beyond these, institutional massification has increased student-to-staff ratios (e.g. 1 to 100), overcrowded classes, strained libraries and tutorials, and laboratories with inadequate equipment (Mahomedbhai, 2017). 4 In addition, many factors have led to the neglect of higher education in Africa, such as political instabilities, failures of African economies to improve people's livelihoods, and ineffective governance of higher education (Mngomezulu, 2012). Beyond these, Dei, Osei-Bonsu and Amponsah (2019) argue that African higher education is commercialised. “It is recorded that private universities grew from 35 in 1969 to 972 in 2015. This commercialisation has shifted higher education from being a public good to a privileged right.” Along with these difficulties, student success is still unattainable in many African countries. For example, Kenya saw an increase in enrolments from 10 000 in 1990 to 539 749 in 2017, but 30–40% of students dropped out before completing their studies (Wambua, 2018). Similarly, 30% of Ugandan students in degree programmes dropped out in 2016 (Businge, 2019). In contrast to many other African nations, South Africa's higher education system has a long history and is more developed (Mngomezulu, 2012). 1.1.3 Higher education access and success in South Africa The massification of South African universities has significantly increased student enrolment, particularly among previously marginalised populations (Strydom, Mentz and Kuh, 2010). The end of apartheid played a crucial role in providing access to higher education for previously excluded populations, leading to transformation in South Africa (Lewin and Mawoyo, 2014; Strydom et al., 2010). The Department of Higher Education and Training defines access as the availability of all prospective students' opportunities for Post-School Education and Training (PSET) (DHET, 2021). In 2021, the higher education sector comprised 26 universities and 124 private higher education institutions (DHET, 2023:9). In the same year, 1 300 961 students were enrolled in both public and private higher education institutions, marking a 32% increase compared to the 2010 enrolment figures (DHET, 2023:10). Despite this growth in headcount enrolment (the number of students enrolled in a PSET institution at any given time during an academic year), South Africa is often characterised as a country with low participation and high attrition rates in higher education (Kilfoil, 2021; Essop, 2020; NPC, 2012). Consequently, South African universities continue to struggle with high dropout and low throughput rates. The Department of Higher Education and Training primarily employs quantitative methods to assess student success, as outlined in the 2021 Dictionary of Terms and 5 Concepts for PSET. These measures include the completion rate (the proportion of students who successfully complete a qualification compared to the total number of eligible students), graduation rate (the number of students who have graduated in a particular year, regardless of the year of study, divided by the total number of students enrolled at universities that year), success rate (the ratio of full-time equivalent (FTE) passes to FTE enrolment), and throughput rate (the number of first-time-entry undergraduate students of a specific year cohort who have graduated within the minimum time, or up to two years beyond the minimum time, compared to the total enrolment of that cohort). However, the throughput rate is generally accepted as the most reliable indicator of quantitative student success because it measures the success within a specific year's cohort. This metric allows us to see how many students registered in the same year eventually complete their studies and how many do not. It provides a clear picture of student progress over time, as demonstrated in the paragraph below. According to the 2019 government review of the first 25 years of democracy, using the 2010 cohort, only 22% of students completed their three-year degrees in record time (DPME, 2019). This figure increased to 39% by the fourth year and to 56% by the sixth year. These figures indicated low throughput rates despite the annual increases in enrolment in the South African higher education sector. It was estimated that over 40% of students in South Africa did not complete their degrees (Marwala and Mpedi, 2022). Additionally, Henn, Hen-Boisen and Posthumus (2017) suggest that of all the students who eventually dropped out of South African higher education, 60% quit during the first year of study. However, this study contends that relying solely on quantitative metrics to measure student success is overly simplistic and overlooks the many factors contributing to student achievement. In any case, throughput rates, completion rates and other quantitative metrics measure the outcomes of the actions undertaken by universities to ensure that students succeed. Tinto (2013) best illustrates the aforementioned statement when he says that student success is not accidental but results from deliberate, systematic, and coordinated efforts involving multiple campus stakeholders. Therefore, this study expands the definition of student success beyond 6 mere quantitative measures, defining it as the ability of students to effectively integrate into the university's social, academic, and emotional environments. 1.1.4 The institutional context of access and success at the case study university UFS has experienced a trajectory similar to the national enrolment trends, where headcount enrolment increased to 41 205 students in 2022 from 39 516 in 2018 (UFS, 2023). Importantly, the UFS consistently enrols more students than planned (CTL, 2021), which could indicate a constrained system facing challenges regarding infrastructure, funding, and staffing. To this end, the university, in its Vision 130 document, has decided to gradually reduce the total headcount enrolment to 35 000 by 2034 (UFS, 2022). Similarly, the University struggles to meet its throughput rates targets. For example, in 2022 the University planned to achieve a 61% throughput rate but actual achievement was 59% (UFS, 2023). In previous years, the undergraduate throughput rate decreased from 58,6% in 2017 to 57,6%" in 2018 (UFS, 2019a) and worsened in 2019 at 52,6%. Also, 20% of UFS mainstream students dropped out in 2020 (CTL, 2021). While this is lower than the national average, the UFS figure is still very high, considering the number of students per headcount. Although numerous reasons may influence a student's decision to drop out, research at UFS indicates that difficulties in the first year are linked to the transition to university life (Henn et al., 2017). Thus, understanding the factors that enable and hinder first-year commuter students' transition is vital to developing appropriate student support mechanisms. 1.1.5 Context of first-year commuter students The model of young, full-time, on-campus, financially secure students who can dedicate all their time to their studies is outdated in today’s higher education environment (Chappell et al., 2020). In a massified higher education environment, many universities cannot support the increasing number of students requiring on- campus housing (Sikhwari et al., 2020). For example, in Canada, a country with universal access, student housing availability and affordability are critical issues (Pillai, Vieta and Sotomayor, 2021). Like South Korea, Japan, and other countries with universal enrolment, Canadian universities increasingly rely on private service providers for student housing. However, private accommodations are costly and often 7 unaffordable. Therefore, many local students commute while attending university (Pillai et al., 2021). Remaining at home while studying has increased the population of first-year commuter students. The population of first-year commuter students varies in age, gender, responsibilities, accommodation, part-time or full-time status, etc. (Thomas and Jones, 2017). Therefore, they are incredibly diverse (Van Zyl and Fourie-Malherbe, 2021). Their residence could be a parental or guardian home or privately rented student housing (Maguire and Morris, 2018). Thus, they are not easy to define. However, a simple definition of first-year commuter students is from Jacoby (2020), who describe them as students who do not stay in institution-owned housing. Smith (2018:2) defines first-year commuter students as "those who travel into university from their parents or their own family home, which they lived in before entering university" (Smith, 2018:2). Maguire and Morris (2018:9-10) define commuter students as "those for whom the travel between their residence and principal study location materially affects their ability to succeed in higher education". Maguire and Morris (2018) also argue that distance matters and those travelling or walking 30 minutes, or more are affected by distance. Additionally, “travel affects students in different ways: it may be the cost or time of travel, the difficulty or cost of parking, and safety concerns (especially on dark evenings)” (Maguire and Morris, 2018). In this study, commuter students are defined as those students who do not reside in university-owned residences. This definition is inclusive of walking and driving students. South Africa is awash with stories of student housing challenges (Thebus, 2024; Kigotho, 2023). Stories such as students having to sleep in university corridors, hallways and even classrooms because universities do not have enough student accommodation (Lusengo, 2023). In fact, student housing is one of the long-standing issues in the country. There has been countless student protests since the dawn of democracy about the shortage of quality and appropriate student housing (Lusengo, 2023; Legodi, 2019). The International Finance Corporation (IFC) published a report in 2020 about ‘The Student Housing Landscape in South Africa’, which details the dire state of student housing shortages, where an estimated 223 110 purpose- built student beds available for public universities and TVET students. Given the combined 8 enrolment of 1,19 million post-school education students in 2020, there was an estimated supply-demand gap of approximately 511 600 beds (IFC, 2020:xi). As discussed in 2.2.1, the increase in enrolment in pursuit of the National Development Plan (NDP) 2030 goals of 1,62 million and the shortages of beds in universities have led to the large number of commuter students. For example, at Stellenbosch University 75% of their student population are commuters (Thebus, 2024). Also, the University of Western Cape annually receives over 20 000 applications for accommodation with only 6 833 university-owned and leased spaces available (Thebus, 2023). The main argument of this study is that commuting to university influences students' chances of succeeding in their studies (Xulu-Gama, 2019; Maguire and Morris, 2018). This argument is supported by the findings from more recent studies (Chappell et al., 2020; Sikhwari et al., 2020; Xulu-Gama, 2019; Maguire and Morris, 2018). Sikhwari et al. (2020:1) correspondingly found that the “academic performance of resident students is slightly better than that of non-resident students; hence, residing on campus is an advantage”. Further, “resident students have more benefits, like access to ancillary buildings, sports facilities, religious activities, and clubs”, than commuter students (Sikhwari et al., 2020:2). These challenges are more pronounced at the first- year level, where students have not developed sufficient higher education experience to withstand the transition challenges. First-year commuter students face a multitude of challenges (Van Zyl and Fourie- Malherbe, 2021; Chappell et al., 2020; Strydom, 2017; Southall, Wason and Avery, 2016; Wilson-Strydom, 2015; Wilson-Strydom, 2014; Kuh, Gonyea and Palmer 2001). Studies by these authors report reasons for such challenges as failure to adapt to new higher education teaching and learning methods and social environments. Also, commuters have less contact with their lecturers and peers. Furthermore, they spend less time doing educationally purposeful activities and have transportation issues, such as a lack of money. They spend a significant amount of time travelling to and from university. Additionally, first-year commuter students lack a sense of belonging and supportive networks. Thus, Van Zyl and Fourie-Malherbe (2021:121) argue that these students “often arrive just in time for class and leave immediately after their classes have ended”. As such, Maguire and Morris (2018) classify them as high-risk students for 9 dropping out. Furthermore, only 5.3% of South African new, first-year contact students were accommodated in university residences (DHET, 2013). Thus, Universities South Africa (USAf) argues that commuter students need more significant support to successfully transition from school to university and eventually succeed in their studies (Strydom and Loots, 2018). The UFS Student Affairs Strategic Plan 2017–2022 posits that there is a lack of participation from first-year commuter students in their interventions aimed at helping them succeed in the UFS. This lack of involvement is a cause for concern, considering that the UFS only accommodates 27% of its first-year contact student population (Strydom and Loots, 2019). These authors posit that 73% of the 2019 first-year students stayed off-campus and not in university-owned residences (Strydom and Loots, 2019). In addition, the UFS Student Affairs Strategic Plan 2017–2022 stresses that interventions to improve student success at the UFS function in silos, primarily because a gap exists between academic and social support. A review of the UFS Strategic Plans since 2009 reveals that this gap was deliberate to focus interventions on social and academic aspects of student life. For example, the UFS 2015–2020 Strategic Plan separated the educational project from the human/social project (UFS, 2015). However, unintended consequences emerged, according to the Student Affairs Strategic Plan 2017–2022, mainly because the distinction created a fragmented approach to student support. Motivated by this challenge, this study proposes that one way to address this fragmentation is through first-year peer networks that integrate academic and social aspects to create a holistic framework for student support (Pilbeam, Lloyd-Jones and Denyer, 2013). 1.1.6 Context of a first-year peer network in the UFS Peer networks are critical in the first year of higher education. Black and MacKenzie (2008) define a peer network as a supportive group of students who help one another with academic learning, social and emotional well-being, and familiarisation with the institution. “Peer network interventions are also designed to improve peer interaction and relationships by supporting greater integration into social environments” (Biggs et al., 2018:67). Students who lack peer support sometimes suffer from exacerbated psychological problems, such as depression. Their general emotional well-being is compromised (Sun, Lin and Chung, 2020). As a result, some universities have 10 introduced peer mentoring to encourage peer support in the first year (Van der Westhuizen, 2021; also see 2.6). Central to peer networks is the understanding that learning is an academic, social, and emotional endeavour. Recent studies reveal that students are connected to other students in a network through modules or courses they take together and extramural activities (Israel, Koester and McKay, 2020; Pilbeam et al., 2013). In other words, they are connected through academic and social activities. The reasons for this peer network choice are multifold (see 2.6). Corwin and Cintrόn (2011) describe the importance of peer relationships as a key to reducing the stress and anxieties related to transitioning from high school to university. Peer networks provide a welcoming and supportive university environment that helps commuter students adapt to the new university’s social and academic settings (see 2.6.2). Peer networks help to develop positive interpersonal relationships that contribute to the integration of students into a university’s academic and social cultures. Beyond these, peer networks support exchanging information and knowledge and help create an affiliation or sense of belonging to the institution (Toma´s-Miquel, Expo´sito-Langa and Nicolau-Julia, 2015). One of the critical contributions of peer networks is that they provide trustworthy friendships where a cohort of first-year commuter students can share their academic and personal challenges. In this case, these networks address challenges related to the transition of first-year students. In addition, such networks offer a range of opportunities such as “(1) academic discussion and problem-solving; (2) validation and benchmarking; and (3) support as well as personal and professional development” (Pilbeam et al., 2013:1479). Additionally, Tinto (2014:13) argues that “students who establish student networks, especially during the first year, are more likely to stay at university than those who are unable to establish those connections” (see 3.3). Thus, this study proposed a socially and academically framework in which peer networks effectively support first-year commuter students to succeed at the UFS (see 7.3). Using the appreciative inquiry [AI] approach (see 4.4), this study reviews the contribution of the UFS peer mentoring programme to students’ social, emotional, and academic well-being (see 6.6). This UFS peer mentoring programme aims to assist 11 first-time entering students with their transition to higher education (UFS, 2022). Generally, peer-mentoring programmes foster positive academic achievement and social acclimation (Yomtov et al., 2017). Peer mentors are trained senior undergraduates who orient first-year students, including commuters. Thus, peer mentoring programmes emphasise supportive and meaningful personal and professional relationships that inspire first-year commuter students to succeed (see 6.6.1). 1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM “Access without support is not opportunity.” - Dr Vincent Tinto, 2008. My experiences as a commuter student at a South African higher education institution served as the primary impetus for this study. Tinto (2014) argues that students have a great chance to successfully integrate into university social and academic contexts when they live on campus. Thus, the relationship between residence life and student success is well established (Xulu-Gama, 2019). Residence life promotes human interaction and provides a living space conducive to learning, collaboration, and forming interpersonal connections between students and university staff (Xulu-Gama, 2019). Thus, “living on campus can improve student retention, particularly for students who might be identified as at-risk and … improved academic performance” (Lewin and Mawoyo, 2014:45). However, in a massified South African higher education system, universities have not kept up with the new student enrolment rate (see 1.1.3). There are backlogs concerning residential spaces (Tshazi, 2020). As a result, the population of commuter students will continue to increase due to the sluggish provision of student housing and rising enrolment (see 1.1.4). Considering the limited provision of student housing and the increasing number of commuter students, developing interventions that enhance their success is vital. Furthermore, there is a need to develop and adapt strategies that cater to commuter students' unique circumstances and challenges (see 2.5). Therefore, this study aligns with Tinto’s statement that providing commuter students with access to university without the necessary support is not enough to ensure their success. 12 However, there is a gap in the literature regarding interventions to support commuter students’ success (Van Zyl and Fourie-Malherbe, 2021; Thomas and Jones, 2017; Lewin and Mawoyo, 2014). Further, Van Zyl and Fourie-Malherbe (2021) posit that there is a scarcity of research to identify and understand the specific needs of commuter students in South Africa. Closing the gap in research on commuter students’ needs and developing a peer framework contributes to creating a more inclusive and supportive environment for these students in South African universities. Therefore, this study aims to close this gap by establishing a framework for South African universities to create a supportive network environment for first-year commuter students. This peer framework seeks to facilitate the success of commuter students and address their social, emotional, and academic needs (see Chapter 7). By focusing on the peer framework, this study recognises the potential of peer support in promoting the success of commuter students. 1.3 TINTO’S INTEGRATION THEORY AS A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK This study applies Vincent Tinto’s theoretical frameworks to comprehend the influence of academic and social integration on first-year student success (Tinto, 2014; also see Chapter 3). Since 1975, Tinto has developed a theoretical model that explains why students persist or drop out (French, 2017). Tinto’s theory argues that for a student to persist, there needs to be a reasonable level of integration with the social and academic environment of higher education (Xulu-Gama, 2019). He contends that a lack of integration may cause a student’s failure to complete higher education. Students may quit if they are not sufficiently assimilated into the institution's academic, emotional, and social environment (Sikhwari et al., 2020). Tinto’s theory has three stages: separation, transition, and integration. These stages encompass a variety of student experiences that shape the decision to leave or stay in a university. This theory fits well with the objectives of this study (see 1.4), mainly to understand how peer networks can facilitate the academic and social integration of first-year commuter students to succeed. Tinto (French, 2017) argues that the first-year experience is vital because students decide whether to leave an institution or continue. Connolly (2016:1) argues that “the decision to drop out arises from a combination of student characteristics and the extent of their academic, environmental, and social integration in an institution". To this end, this conceptual framework posits that academic and non- academic factors influence student persistence. 13 According to Tinto, strong affiliation to academic and social environments increases students’ commitment to and desire to earn a degree (Arnekrans, 2014). Conversely, “a departure decision was a longitudinal process, and a student who experienced isolation, adjustment issues, difficulty, or incongruence with the institution was more likely to depart than a student who did not” (Zomer, 2007:18). The justification to apply Tinto’s theory in this study is because it underlines the value of peer support for student success. It also emphasises the significance of a comprehensive strategy for student success that considers their social, emotional, and academic contexts. 1.4 AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY This study aimed to develop a framework for a supportive peer network for first- year commuter students that could address their academic, emotional, and social needs. The following objectives emanating from the problem statement (see 1.2) were proposed to be addressed in different chapters of this study: • Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 focus on conducting a comprehensive literature study on peer networks to support first-year commuter students to succeed. • Chapter 5 discusses the findings of the analysis of documents from selected South African universities to establish how institutions assist first-year commuter students to succeed. • Chapter 6 discusses first-year commuter students’ experiences of the academic, social, and emotional needs in the case study university environment. • Chapter 7 proposes a framework for a peer network that supports first-year commuter students’ academic, social and emotional needs in the case study university environment. 14 1.5 RESEARCH QUESTIONS The main research question in this study was designed to articulate the purpose of the study: How can South African universities create a supportive peer network for first-year commuter students that could address their social, emotional, and academic needs? The following related sub-questions were formulated to respond to this central research question: • Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 focus on what are different literature perspectives on the role of a peer network in supporting first-year commuter students to succeed? • Chapter 5 discusses the findings of the document analysis conducted to find out what other South African universities are doing to support first-year commuter students to succeed? • Chapter 6 focuses on the empirical research findings that looked at first-year commuter students’ experiences of the academic, social and emotional needs in the case study university environment? With particular reference to the AI formulation, What opportunities exist for enhancing academic, social, and emotional engagement needs in the case study university environment among first-year commuter students? • Chapter 7 provides conclusions and recommendations as well as a proposed framework for peer network? With particular reference to the AI formulation, What activities or initiatives have successfully engaged commuter students academically, socially, and emotionally in the case study university environment in the past, and how can we build on these successes? I responded to these research questions by conducting a comprehensive literature, theoretical perspective, and empirical research with first-year commuter students. 15 1.6 DEFINITION OF TERMS This study makes use of several concepts, and therefore the following definitions are offered for the clarification of these concepts and their interpretation within the higher education context of this study: 1.6.1 First-year commuter student This refers is a student who does not stay in university-owned residences (Smith, 2018; Jacoby, 2020). They vary concerning their off-campus accommodations. Some stay with parents and siblings, while others are parents raising their children. Others stay in private accommodations closer to campus. Some drive to campus or use public transport, while others walk to university. 1.6.2 Peer network This refers to a supportive group of students who support one another with academic learning, social and emotional well-being, and familiarisation with the institution (Mntuyedwa, 2023; Vignery and Laurier, 2020; Black and MacKenzie, 2008). 1.6.3 Success for first-year commuters This study expands the definition of student success beyond mere quantitative measures, defining it as the ability of students to integrate effectively into the university’s social, academic and emotional environments. This definition also encompasses student persistence, that students remain registered at the university until they complete their studies. 1.6.4 First-year student network This refers to the formal or informal grouping of students with similar characteristics intending to achieve specific goals (Pilbeam et al., 2013). For instance, the organisation of a student network for first-year commuter students falls under this category. This study focuses primarily on the UFS peer mentorship programme, which constitutes a student network programme designed to offer academic, social, and emotional support to first-time students as they navigate the transition to university. 16 1.7 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY A brief description of the qualitative research approach and methodology was used to accomplish the study. This chapter narrates the rationale for selecting specific courses of action to achieve this study’s set objectives (see 1.4). Beyond this, it describes the research design adopted for this study (see 4.3). It also refers to the data collection methods (see 4.5), the research sites where the study was conducted, the selection of the population sample (see 4.6), and ethical considerations (see complete detail in Chapter 4). The study objectives informed the methodology and empirical research design selection (see 1.6) to develop a first-year commuter student network framework for student success. 1.7.1 Interpretive paradigm and higher education as a field of study This higher education study is located within the research field of student experiences and student support (Tight, 2012). It is premised on the interpretative paradigm, a philosophical approach to studying human affairs based on the idea that individuals' experiences are subjective and determined by the context in which they live (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2007). “This approach makes an effort to get into the head of the subjects being studied … and to understand and interpret what the subject is thinking or the meaning s/he is making of the context.” (Kivunja and Kuyini, 2017:33). Further, this paradigm argues that “knowledge is produced by exploring and understanding the social world of the people being studied, focusing on their meanings and interpretations” (Ormston et al., 2013:12). Thanh and Thanh (2015:24) posit that the interpretative paradigm “allows researchers to view the world through the perceptions and experiences of the participants”. This interpretative paradigm was appropriate for the study, as it aimed to develop a framework for a peer network that is informed by the experiences of first-year UFS commuter students (see full details 4.2). 1.7.2 Qualitative research approach This study followed a qualitative approach, which refers to “any kind of research that produces findings not arrived at by employing statistical procedures or other means of quantification” (Golafshani, 2003:600). Qualitative methods generally aim to 17 understand the experiences and attitudes of participants (McCusker and Gunaydin, 2015). This qualitative approach was appropriate for the study (see full details 4.3) as it explained, described, or explored events or phenomena (i.e. creating a supportive peer network for first-year commuter students in this study) related to its objectives (Crowe et al., 2011). 1.7.3 Appreciative Inquiry (AI) into the UFS peer mentor programme This study uses AI to understand the contribution of the UFS peer mentor programme to first-year commuter students’ academic, emotional, and social needs (see 4.4). Nel and Govender (2019) define AI as a strength-based interpretive and qualitative approach (see also 1.7.2) to developing positive change. It focuses the research process on what works, rather than fixing what does not. AI “advocates a collective inquiry into the best of what is to imagine what could be, followed by the collective design of a desired future state” (Nel and Govender, 2019:337). AI is based on appreciating what works in an organisation or programme, which is the basis for innovation and improvement. Thus, the AI fits well with the aim of the study, namely to appreciate and understand the contribution of the UFS peer mentor programme to the academic, emotional, and social support of first-year commuter students (see full details 4.4). 1.7.4 Qualitative research methods Two types of qualitative methods were applied. in the first instance, to broaden the contribution and understanding of practices elsewhere, the study conducted document analyses of reports and documents from student affairs and centres for teaching and learning from seven South African universities (see full details in 4.5.1). Secondly, focus-group discussions were conducted with UFS first-year commuter students who are/were part of the peer mentor programme (see full details in 4.5.2). 1.7.5 Data collection through qualitative inquiry This doctoral study was based on the following qualitative inquiry: 18 1.7.5.1 Document analysis A document analysis refers to documents collected from seven universities (see 4.5.1) to find best practices for supporting first-year commuter students to succeed in South African universities. The two primary documents that formed part of this analysis were strategic plans and annual reports. However, additional documents were incorporated where the need arose. There are 26 public universities in South Africa. Seven universities were selected. The chosen universities’ inclusion criteria are as follows: three were traditional universities: UFS, Stellenbosch University (SU) and North-West University (NWU). Furthermore, two comprehensive universities were selected, the University of Johannesburg (UJ) and the Nelson Mandela University (NMU), as well as two universities of technology, the Durban University of Technology (DUT) and the Tshwane University of Technology (TUT). 1.7.5.2 Focus-group discussions at the case study university Eight focus-group discussions (with a minimum of eight and a maximum of twelve student participants) were conducted (see Appendix D) as the most appropriate data collection instrument (see 4.5.2). Kirchberger et al.(2009) confirm the rationale for eight focus groups and found that data saturation was reached after conducting eight focus-group discussions on the same topic (see 4.6). The recruited student participants in this study were part of the UFS peer mentor programme. Purposive sampling was applied to select mainstream undergraduate students on the Bloemfontein, Qwaqwa, and South Campuses. Thus, given the sizes of the three campuses, four focus groups were conducted in Bloemfontein, two in Qwaqwa, and two at the South Campus. The criterion for selection was that a student should be part of or have participated in the peer mentor programme as a commuter. Permission to conduct the study was obtained from the Vice-Rector: Research, Innovation, and Internationalisation (see Appendix A), as well as the Faculty of Education’s ethics committee (see also 1.11 and 4.9). The recruitment process included liaising with the peer mentor programme leaders to get the contact details of participating students. 19 Only students who agreed to sign the informed consent forms were involved (see Appendix B). 1.7.6 Selection of research participants The researcher liaised with the peer mentor programme leaders to recruit participants on the three UFS campuses. Focus-group discussions (see full details 4.6) were conducted in person. 1.8 DATA ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION, REPORTING AND QUALITY ASSURANCE As already explained (see 1.6.5), this study conducted a document analysis of reports from seven South African universities (i.e. UFS, UJ, NWU, SU, DUT, TUT and NMU). Bowen (2009:27) defines document analysis as “a systematic procedure for reviewing or evaluating documents”. Data were examined and interpreted to explain how South African universities support first-year commuter students to succeed. This qualitative method is often used with other methods for triangulation (Johnson, 2011; Bowen, 2009). This study conducted document analysis and empirical methods, such as focus-group discussions with participants from the case study university (see 4.5.2). Nvivo was used for this analysis format. The data generated from the focus-group discussions were thematically analysed (see full details 4.7). “Thematic analysis involves searching for recurring patterns of meaning and common themes across a broad data set” (Cornell, 2015:31). The Braun and Clarke (2006) framework was used for this analysis (see 4.7.1). The framework comprised six phases of thematic analysis, namely familiarising oneself with one’s data. Braun and Clarke (2006:16) posit that “it is vital that you immerse yourself in the data to the extent that you are familiar with the depth and breadth of the content”. The immersion process involved repeated data reading and actively searching for meanings and patterns (Braun and Clarke, 2006). The second phase involved generating initial codes. This coding process helped to identify features of the data that appeared to be interesting (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Phase three was searching for themes. This process involved sorting the different codes into themes to “re-focus the analysis at the broader level of themes, rather than codes” (Braun and Clarke, 2006:19). 20 The fourth phase reviewed themes, sorting the initial themes into the study’s most relevant and appropriate themes. The fifth phase defined and named themes, which consisted of defining and refining themes to be presented in the analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006). The sixth phase was producing this thesis report (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Nvivo was also used for this analysis format. Data and research instruments were also stored in a secure space as stipulated by university regulations. 1.9 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS Ethical clearance (see Appendix C) was obtained from the Faculty of Education’s Ethics Committee (UFS-HSD2020/1434/0911). Moreover, gatekeeper approvals were obtained from the relevant universities (see Appendix A). The study adhered to all ethical principles, such as respect for participants, the anonymity of participants, the voluntary nature of the study, and informed written consent obtained from each participant (Vanclay, Baines and Taylor, 2013). Furthermore, to protect the anonymity of the participants, pseudonyms were used when reporting on the research. The characteristics of the three campuses in the study are as follows: • Campus 1 is in an urban environment, predominantly serving students from well-resourced schools in quintiles 4 and 5. Quintile 4 and 5 schools are fee- paying, affluent schools that cater to families with higher incomes (Van Dyk and White, 2019). • Campus 2 is in a small rural community. It primarily serves students from lower quintiles 1 to 3. Quintiles 1 to 3 represent no-fee-paying schools catering to lower-income families. • Campus 3 is in an urban environment. It mainly offers extended curriculum programmes (ECPs) or foundational education. ECPs are also called access or academic development programmes (Engelbrecht, Harding and Potgieter, 2014). These programmes provide access to students from disadvantaged backgrounds who may not have qualified for mainstream programmes. • Table 4.1 displays the number of participants categorised by pseudonym, gender, focus-group number, and campus. There were 67 participants across the three campuses, with an average of eight participants per focus group. 21 Any references to potentially identifying information (such as their specific lecturers) were removed from the extracts quoted in the analysis and report (Cornell, 2015; see Chapter 6). 1.10 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY This study aimed to contribute to the development of commuter student success and peer networks while also contributing to UFS student success goals as discussed in the UFS Strategic Plan 2018–2022 and Learning and Teaching Strategy 2019–2024 (UFS, 2018a; UFS, 2019b). Therefore, the researcher envisaged that the findings would benefit first-year commuters, faculties (teaching and learning), and student support divisions (e.g. Student Affairs and CTL). 1.11 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on data gathering. Initially, the plan was to conduct focus-group discussions online from April to June 2022 to avoid in- person interactions. However, a tiny fraction of participants could attend Microsoft Teams meetings, which resulted in the cancellation of online focus groups. Consequently, all focus-group discussions took place in person due to the poor participation in online sessions and the relaxation of lockdown regulations in South Africa. It is worth noting that all focus-group discussions occurred after all COVID-19 related restrictions were lifted, specifically in August and September 2022. 1.12 CONCLUSION This chapter discussed the rationale and highlighted the methodology behind the study. The study falls within the interpretative paradigm, aiming to comprehend the experiences of first-year commuter students regarding their academic, emotional, and social transition to university. The selection of a sample of South African institutions was crucial to gaining a broader insight into the strategies implemented to support the success of first-year commuter students (see details in Chapter 5). As noted in 2.5, there is a lack of research concerning the issues affecting first-year commuter students in South Africa. Thus, the lack of research on the challenges faced by first-year commuter students motivated and emphasised the importance of addressing this gap. By engaging with first-year commuter students at the UFS and 22 utilising the AI approach, the study aimed to explore their transition experiences (6.6) and evaluate how the peer mentor programme assisted them in adjusting to university life (Chapter 7). Chapter 2 delves into the existing literature on peer networks to support first-year commuter students to succeed. This literature serves as a foundation for understanding the significance of peer relationships and how they can contribute to first-year commuter students' academic, emotional, and social adjustment. 23 CHAPTER 2 UNDERSTANDING FIRST-YEAR COMMUTER STUDENTS 2.1 INTRODUCTION The massification of higher education globally has led to a substantial increase in students outside university residences. “At the same time, financial constraints prohibit higher education institutions from providing sufficient student accommodation on campus” (Van Zyl, 2018: iii). Staying off-campus presents many issues that are discussed in the chapter. Universities often adopt a residential approach towards commuter students, meaning their issues remain neglected and at the periphery of student concerns in higher education. Simply put, in many cases, residential students are more exposed to student support services when compared to commuter students. Many universities, like the UFS, continue to use a residential model, meaning student support interventions are accommodative to residential students with the luxury of time and space to attend them. Thus, commuter students who are hardly on campus may not receive sufficient student support (Lemmens, 2010). However, as established in 1.2, there is a dearth of literature regarding the experience of commuter students and interventions that support their success (Van Zyl and Fourie-Malherbe, 2021; Thomas and Jones, 2017; Lewin and Mawoyo, 2014). Furthermore, Van Zyl (2018) argues that in South African higher education, very little research has been conducted on commuter students, and a limited national database is available regarding these students (Van Zyl and Fourie-Malherbe, 2021). The focus of this chapter is threefold: firstly, to explore the historical factors that have contributed to the growth of student populations in recent years, particularly the increase in commuting students; secondly, to define commuter students and examine the benefits and challenges they face; and thirdly, to investigate the role of peer networks, specifically peer mentorship, in supporting the success of commuter students (see 1.4). This study employs a qualitative literature review approach to explore various perspectives. Denney and Tewksbury (2012:1) define a qualitative literature review as “a comprehensive overview of prior research regarding a specific topic”. A qualitative literature review is beneficial in two ways: it allows researchers to glean ideas from others interested in a particular research question, and it provides insights into the results of other studies (Vanclay, Baines, and Taylor, 2013; 24 Onwuegbuzie, Leech and Collins, 2012:2). The subsequent paragraphs provide a historical context of some factors that led to the massification of higher education and the growth of commuter students from global and local perspectives. 2.2 HIGHER EDUCATION TRANSFORMATION As numerous countries worldwide democratise in the 21st century, equitable access and academic success have emerged as critical concerns for governments, institutions, and scholars (Chiramba and Ndofirepi, 2023; Strydom, 2017). Almost all countries worldwide have witnessed a growth in the number of students accessing higher education. This phenomenon has been termed the massification of higher education (Andrade, 2014). While initially, the focus of many higher education institutions globally was on access to higher education for previously marginalised groups, many universities realised that access without success constituted a waste of talent and resources for these students. In fact, according to Tinto (2012), providing access to historically marginalised groups without offering the opportunity for success was not helping them at all. Therefore, improving access and success are discussed in this chapter as critical factors for commuter student experiences in higher education (Strydom, 2017). 2.2.1 Expanding access to higher education Calderon (2018) posits that access to higher education has expanded considerably since World War II ended. The rebuilding process that followed the war required skilled labour to modernise mainly European, American, and Asian countries. Mohamedbhai (2008:5) argues that the “latter part of the twentieth century saw the democratisation of higher education and a shift from elitist to mass higher education”. The higher education massification process saw unprecedented enrolment growth and the student body’s diversification. Thus, Guri-Rosenblit, Sebkova and Teichier (2007:1) argue that “the massive expansion of higher education across all continents has been one of the defining features of the late 20th and early 21st centuries”. UNESCO (2024) reports that approximately 254 million students were enrolled in higher education worldwide in 2024, more than double the number from 20 years ago. Moreover, it is estimated that by 2040, there will be 600 million students enrolled in higher education 25 globally (Calderon, 2018). Thus, the global higher education system has reached a mass level where 15% to 50% access higher education (Tight, 2019). Although traditionally, the growth was spearheaded by Western Europe and the United States, since 2000, Asia has overtaken these regions in terms of total higher education enrolment, particularly China and India (Calderon, 2018). The main drivers of the growth in enrolment worldwide are the expansion of sciences and technology and industrialisation, which have improved the standard of living for many people. Furthermore, the increasing demand for higher education access is primarily driven by globalisation and the rise of the knowledge economy (Motala, 2017). Access to higher education has expanded substantially in South Africa. The South African higher education transformation policy context has focused on increasing and broadening university access since the early 1990s (Wilson-Strydom, 2011:407). The transition to democracy in South Africa has played a significant role. The post-apartheid era in South Africa brought about substantial changes in higher education, aiming to address historical inequalities and promote inclusivity (Lewin and Mawoyo, 2014). Many policies and initiatives were implemented to ensure previously marginalised groups, such as black South Africans, have equal opportunities for higher education. These efforts have rapidly increased enrolment rates among these populations (Pandor, 2019). Over the past two decades, South African higher education has undergone a significant policy transformation, increasing participation in higher education. The changes in the NSFAS funding policies where Government funding expansion has led to increased participation at post-school institutions (Statistics South Africa, 2017:33). However, this growth fails to address the high costs of higher education, which hinder students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds (Statistics South Africa, 2017). According to Matsolo, Ningpuanyeh and Susuman (2018), South African student enrolment has grown by an average rate of 4,2% per year since 2000. In 2021, 1 300 961 students were enrolled at public and private higher education institutions, which was a 32% increase compared to the 2010 public and private enrolment figures 26 (DHET, 2023:10). This growth aligns with the NDP’s target of enrolling 1,6 million students by 2030 in universities. One of the consequences of this massification is the inability of higher education to adequately meet students' demands. Insufficient funding, poor education quality, compromised infrastructure, and overall subpar student experiences are some of the failures (Strydom, 2017; Mohamedbhai, 2008). Mohamedbhai (2008:12) argues that students are the primary victims of massification due to overcrowded classrooms and inadequate academic facilities like laboratories and research equipment. Limited funding and slow construction of new residences mean many students cannot live in university-owned accommodations (Van Zyl, 2018). Student housing stands out as one of the prominent impacts of the massification process. Given the combined South African enrolment of 1,19 million post-school education students in 2020, there was an estimated supply-demand gap of approximately 511 600 beds (IFC, 2020:xi). The shortages of beds in universities have led to the increase of commuting students. 2.2.2 Large classes because of massification The challenge of large classes is connected to the trend of massification. Among the negative consequences of the massification process is that institutions must increase student intake often without improving the infrastructure to match the student numbers (Mohamedbhai, 2017). Thus, large classes have become the norm, while decreased state funding has become very common. “Large classes at the university create physical distance between lecturers and students and may intimidate students” (Lewin and Mawoyo, 2014:58). There is no universally accepted definition of large classes, though generally, a class with 100 students is considered significant (Msiza, Ndhlovu and Raseroka, 2020). Some classes may even contain more than 1000 students at a time. Simpson (2015) argues that large class sizes restrict the teaching methods that can be implemented effectively. For instance, it is challenging for all students to engage or participate in discussions in large classes, hindering active learning due to the physical constraints of the environment. Additionally, it becomes difficult for lecturers to address individual students' queries, potentially resulting in decreased engagement and increased passivity. This trend may foster a lecturer-centred environment where 27 knowledge is primarily transmitted from the lecturer to the students, who are expected to absorb it passively. Conversely, a student-centred approach, which promotes "engagement, collaboration, and student autonomy" (Kerimbayev et al., 2023:2), is not feasible in large classes. Large classes can also exacerbate student success issues. Basaka (2011) found a positive correlation between small classes and improved student achievements. Adimonyemma, Akachukwu and Igboabuchi (2018) argue that large class sizes do not promote quality interaction between lecturers and students and, thus, harm students’ academic performance. Lewin and Mawoyo (2014) posit that some of the negative influences of large classes include an extensive workload on academic staff, poor assessment practices, and compromised quality of teaching and learning, just to name a few. Furthermore, “students who sit far away from the lecturer may not always hear what is being taught, and because of the large student numbers” (Lewin and Mawoyo, 2014:61). Large classes are standard in the introductory modules (Tewari and Ilesanmi, 2020). These authors argue that South African universities must increase the intake of new, first-time students without resources backing them. Thus, the student-staff ratios are very high across universities in South Africa at the first-year level, which leads to over-crowding (Tewari and Ilesanmi, 2020). 2.2.3 Increasing students’ chances of success Mentz (2012:2) argues that progress in higher education can no longer be measured by the access or participation rates of diverse groups but by their equitable success. Many universities have struggled to increase students’ chances of success (Strydom, 2017). Universities Australia 2019 report that, on average, 16% of Australian bachelor students drop out annually, and 74% complete their four-year degrees within nine years (Universities Australia, 2019). As established in 1.1.1, according to the OECD, among its 36 member states worldwide, on average, two in ten (24%) bachelor’s-level programme students leave without acquiring their bachelor’s degrees (OECD, 2019). In developing countries, such as Colombia, “around 37% of students who begin a BA programme drop out of 28 the higher education system altogether” (Sandoval-Palis et al., 2020:2). In Spain, one out of five students drop out of university (Arce et al., 2015). According to the 2019 government review of the first 25 years of democracy report, using the 2010 cohort, only 22% of students complete their three-year degrees in record time (DPME, 2019). This figure increased to 39% by the fourth year and 56% by the sixth year (DPME, 2019). These figures suggest a low throughput rate despite the annual increases in enrolment in the South African higher education sector. It is estimated that over 40% of students in South Africa do not complete their degrees (Marwala and Mpedi, 2022). Beyond these, Henn et al. (2017) posit that of all the students who eventually drop out of South African higher education, 60% quit during the first year of study. Concerning the UFS, the CTL annual 2020 report (CTL, 2021) posits that 20% of mainstream first-year students drop out in 2020 compared to 16% in 2018. Given that, in general, most first-year students stay off-campus at the UFS (see 2.3), dropout rates are expected to be much higher among commuter students. Therefore, the following paragraphs focus on defining first-year commuter students (see 2.3), the benefits of commuting (see 2.4) and the challenges that make them susceptible to dropout compared to residential students (see 2.5). 2.3 DEFINING A FIRST-YEAR COMMUTER STUDENT Worldwide, universities are struggling to meet the demands of student housing. In the United States, 85% of students in higher education were classified as commuters (Jacoby, 2020). In the United Kingdom (UK), around 25% of the student population stays in the family home while studying in higher education (Thomas, 2020). Furthermore, many UK students leave home but remain in student housing outside their campuses. Thus, very few students in the UK stay in university-owned residences. First-year commuter students are highly diverse compared to residential students in age, gender, needs, education level, and university preparedness (Jacoby, 2020). Furthermore some are part-time, full-time, parents, wholly or partly employed, from rural areas and first-generation (Van Zyl and Fourie-Malherbe, 2021). Thus, the model of a young, full-time, on-campus, financially secure student who can dedicate all their time to their studies is outdated in today’s higher education (Chappell et al., 2020). Furthermore, Jacoby (2020) argues that universities view these students as non-traditional and they have been perpetually marginalised in residential institutions. 29 This assertion stems from the traditional model of higher education, which revolves around an on-campus, residential experience that fosters a distinct campus culture and community. Like most universities worldwide, UFS accommodates a minority of its undergraduate student population in residences (Strydom and Loots, 2019). These authors state that the UFS only housed 27% of its first-year contact student population in 2019, and the remaining (73%) stayed off-campus (see 1.1.3). This study defines commuter students as those who do not reside in university-owned residences (see 1.1.5). This definition includes walking and driving students and aligns with the most popular definitions of commuter students (Jacoby, 2020). Smith (2018:2) adds critical components to his definition. The author defines first-year commuter students as “those who travel into university from their parents or their own family home, which they lived in before entering university”. From Smith’s definition, one can begin to see the most salient aspects of commuting: travelling and the location of the accommodation. 2.4 BENEFITS OF FIRST-YEAR COMMUTER STUDENTS There are several benefits associated with commuting. Emblen-Perry, Nichol and Ross (2020) report that commuting students can avoid on-campus accommodation costs. Maguire and Morris (2018) say it can be cheaper to live at home (despite commuting). Gormley (2016) found that commuter students who drove to university had higher social standing than those who used public transport. Therefore, Gormley (2016) disputes that students commute because of financial difficulties. Furthermore, this author found that students living with their parents are less likely to receive government financial support. They also had the highest part-time employment rate amongst the various groups (Gormley, 2016). Students who stay at home report enjoying the privacy of having their own familiar space, e.g. their own rooms (Emblen-Perry et al., 2020). Commuting allows close family, religious, and community support networks to be maintained. Emblen-Perry et al. (2020) argue that maintaining family, religious, and community support networks offers protection against sudden change, particularly for less confident students. These authors claim that living at home prevents learners from being distracted by the 30 traditional university social life, thus allowing them to concentrate on their studies (Emblen-Perry et al., 2020:4). Other benefits of living off-campus include “(a) ability to cook meals, (b) length of lease/contract, (c) proximity to campus/town, (d) parking accommodation, (e) ability to live with or near friends, and (f) a private bathroom” (Muhammad, Hafazah and Ishak 2012:603). However, there are numerous disadvantages associated with commuting. Traditionally, among other things, these challenges were related to academic performance, living conditions, adapting to institutional cultures, transportation, and student engagement (see 2.5). However, the COVID-19 pandemic has created additional difficulties. 2.5 CHALLENGES OF FIRST-YEAR COMMUTER STUDENTS The literature on first-year commuter students reports many challenges (Xulu-Gama, 2019). According to Thomas (2020:1), in the UK, these students are likely to be first- generation in their families to attend higher education. Also, are more likely come from lower-income families, are mature, and are from an ethnic minority background (Thomas, 2020). This author argues that UK commuters will likely come from a state school and report lower rates of belonging and satisfaction with higher education. In the context of South Africa, Van Zyl (2018) found that institutions do not do much to support commuters. Furthermore, there is a shortage of research concerning understanding the needs of commuter students. Consequently, many South African universities interviewed by Van Zyl (2018) indicated they did not have student support interventions targeting commuter students. Therefore, the numerous challenges that affect commuter students are not addressed. These challenges are predominantly related to 1) their living environment (see 2.5.1); 2) underpreparedness (see 2.5.2); 3) commuter student engagement (see 2.5.3); 4) transportation (see 2.5.4); 5) commuter student funding (see 2.5.5); 6) adapting to the institutional culture (see 2.5.6); 7) lack of space on campus (see 2.5.7); and 8) the influence of COVID-19 (see 2.5.8). 2.5.1 The living environment of commuter students Demand for student housing has seen rapid growth driven predominantly by increased student enrolment globally across the past decades (Xulu-Gama, 2019). Residences 31 provide numerous social and academic benefits to students. Thus, students who reside in university residences are less likely to drop out academically (Sikhwari et al., 2020). Xulu-Gama (2019:16) argues that “as a result of being based in residence, the students benefit from an extra set of people (staff members and senior students or peers) who look out for their academic and social needs”. However, as already stated (see 2.3), only a handful of students get on-campus accommodation. Sikhwari et al. (2020:2) argue that “the provision of accessible, decent, and safe accommodation in South African universities is important for student's academic success, especially those from rural and poor backgrounds”. On average, Sikhwari et al. (2020) found that the academic performance of resident students was better than that of non‑resident students. First-year commuter students often fulfil multiple roles at home and university and are reported to lack a sense of belonging and support networks (Strydom, 2017; Southall et al., 2016; Wilson-Strydom, 2015; Wilson-Strydom, 2014; Kuh et al., 2001). Thus, some are students during the day but parents and workers at night. Thomas and Jones (2018) report that commuter students often lack faculty