Shaping higher education for commuter students

Susan Kenyon considers who commuter students are, what they need and why the sector should care.

Susan Kenyon is Principal Lecturer in Politics at Canterbury Christ Church University

For the first time, there are now more commuter students in the UK – students who continue to live at home whilst studying, rather than relocating to attend university – than traditional residential students.

Surprised? You’re not alone. My research on commuter students suggests that even commuter students themselves don’t realise that there are others like them. In common with most of those who shape higher education pedagogy, policy, practices and plans for the future, they believe that they are a minority, an anomaly, inconsistent with the (presumed) majority of “normal,” residential students.

The sector is increasingly waking up to the needs and experiences of commuter students, supported by the inclusion of commuters in the Office for Students Equality of Opportunity Risk Register in England – Emma Maslin has explored this further on the site.

It is essential, for students, higher education institutions and the future viability of our sector, that we increase awareness of commuter students – who they are and what they need – and that we reshape higher education provision for this growing cohort.

Students will benefit from a better experience and outcomes. Institutions will benefit from higher retention, league table position and therefore recruitment. The sector as a whole will benefit from greater financial stability and clear evidence to the government that we are meeting their priorities and truly expanding access and improving outcomes for non-traditional students.

Who commutes – and why?

Commuter students are diverse. However, there is a strong correlation between being a non-traditional student – those targeted by widening participation initiatives – and being a commuter student.

This is because many of the reasons that students have historically been unable or unwilling to enrol in higher education are the same as those that make them unable or unwilling to relocate. These include affordability, being first in family to higher education, from a low-participation neighbourhood, having caring or family commitments, over 25. Commuters are also likely to be in employment, be home owners, to be studying part time, at lower-tariff universities. Finally, my research suggests that commuter students are more likely to be local students, not long-distance learners.

This said, commuting isn’t always about widening participation. It is likely that the undersupply of student accommodation and resultant increasing prices, alongside the cost-of-living crisis, are encouraging traditional students to remain at home. There is also evidence to suggest that international and postgraduate students are more likely to be commuters, both key target markets for UK higher education institutions.

Relocation as a predictor of success

But why does this matter? Data tell us that commuter students have a poorer experience throughout the student lifecycle. Choice of institution, access to learning, resources, support and extra-curricular activities, are all restricted. Commuters are less able to engage with in-person learning activities and are isolated from their learning community.

They feel less a sense of belonging, more a sense of burden. In consequence, commuter students have lower attainment, continuation and graduate outcomes than their residential counterparts.

In part, this is because higher education has been designed without consideration of the need to travel. Pedagogy, policy and processes have historically been and continue to be shaped around residential students. Assessments, extracurricular activities, facilities, learning and wellbeing support, teaching activities, timetabling—all continue to be premised on the residential model, structured for the residential student, provided at a time and in a place that assumes that students live on or near to campus.

What next?

The first step is to see our commuters. Count them, to make them count. Make them visible, not only to decision makers and practitioners, but also to each other. Provide information for commuters, before, during and after application. Create a sense of belonging, building community through awareness, acceptance and actions such as repurposing unused parts of the estate, for commuter students – a common room, sleeping areas.

Next, review all policies for accessibility, with particular focus on timetabling, attendance, learning and teaching, support services and skills development.

Make changes where necessary, enabling students to maximise access, whilst minimising travel. Rethink in-person learning and make attendance worth it. Consider online learning, but avoid hybrid learning and include on-commute learning options.

Myth busting

For commuter students, access to learning isn’t just about distance. It’s not even just about transport. We need to look at the acceptability, accessibility, affordability and availability of transport. However, we also need to recognise that access and participation are also about students’ activities, responsibilities and relationships, outside of the classroom.

The data tell us that our commuter students are struggling to adapt to pedagogy, policies and practices that are based on the assumption that they will relocate to attend university. Our ability to adapt our provision to their needs is likely to be key to the future sustainability of many of our institutions, if not the sector as a whole.

This article is the first in our series on commuter students where we’ll explore their student journey and what support institutions and the sector can provide to enhance their experience. If you’d like to get involved in the series, we’d welcome further contributions, email team@wonkhe.com to pitch us an article.

4 responses to “Shaping higher education for commuter students

  1. I’m pleased to see this being considered though frankly it’s always been the case for most post-92s where I really don’t think that things are typically planned to a residential model.

    I’ve seen some truly wild takes on this on social media with people suggesting shifting the teaching day to afternoons-and-evenings-only to accommodate cheaper travel, which would be massively detrimental not only to student experience but also staff wellbeing; you’d end up with those who don’t have children doing all the late night teaching for instance and attendance would be dire anyway cos students also need to work and most are ok with the balance of travel expense vs e.g. halls fees so won’t want evening classes.

    But I do think that Unis should try to shift to packaging timetables so students are on campus for max 3 days a week., Sadly timetabling systems don’t seem well set up to manage this in general.

    1. We moved some of our classes to a 4pm slot last autumn. It was a disaster because many female students especially don’t want to commute after dark. On the other hand, asynchronous online classes that reproduce on campus lectures have been a wild success. We regularly have over a hundred students in the classroom on a Wednesday and similar numbers attend online on a Friday.

  2. Hello there and thank you for your comment. It’s important that we reshape higher education for the students that we have – and timetabling for commuters is essential.
    But it is equally important that we pilot all major changes, to make sure that we are aware of and can mitigate any negative impacts.

  3. It might also be worth considering policies and practice in Australia and Canada, where >75% students commute, even wealthy students to the elites. Mind you, they don’t match England’s very high completion rate.

Leave a reply