Tag: commuter

  • How commuter students show up in new access and participation plans

    How commuter students show up in new access and participation plans

    When the Office for Students included commuter students in the Equality of Opportunity Risk Register (EORR), it recognised the risk that commuter students may not always get the same experience as their “traditional” residential peers.

    The second wave of access and participation plans (APPs) for 2025–26 to 2028–29 have slowly been published and in the wake of the EORR’s inclusion of commuter students, we’ve got a better sense of the steps providers are taking to make the experience more equitable.

    Taking Universities UK’s member list as the sample and searching variations of the phrase “commuting student” in the currently available wave two APPs, 44 out of 81 APPs (at the time of writing) referred to commuter students in some form.

    Sometimes this was a simple statement of demographics, for example, “over 86 per cent are commuters,” or a statement of intention – “increase… work with commuting and mature students.” Other plans detailed comprehensive work to reduce inequities with various interventions, projects and additional research to undertake.

    Some plans referred to commuters broadly in a literature review but did not link this to their local contexts, and as such were not included in our analysis.

    Definitions

    As part of our ongoing series about commuter students, convened with Susan Kenyon at Canterbury Christ Church University, one challenge when discussing support for commuters is working out if everyone is talking about the same thing.

    The EORR sets out that commuter students referred to students “based on the distance or time [students] take to travel from their accommodation to their place of study” – but it then goes on to note there are many definitions, referencing both time and distance and the fact of not having re-located for university.

    In the absence of a sector-wide definition, providers have had to work this out themselves.

    The majority of plans that referenced a definition identified commuters as students whose home address matches their term time address, who had been recruited locally or still lived in their family home. Some plans used a distance to identify commuters, for example 15+ miles into their main campus base. When using distance as a criteria it opens up the possibility of a commuting student also being a student who has relocated to university but lives further away due to cost and housing pressures.

    As we’ve seen earlier in the series, there are differences in the experience based on those who chose to commute versus those who do so out of necessity.

    St Mary’s University in Twickenham explored using the Office of the National Statistics’ Travel to Work Areas maps to define commuters and setting an average travel time of 15 minutes or more (using public transport) from a term time address. They explicitly noted they had investigated the impact of using different definitions of commuter students when analysing student outcomes which led them to identifying commuters as their sixth risk category.

    When identifying commuters in APPs, ten plans went into detail about the intersecting characteristics of this demographic of students. One provider noted that “commuter students are more likely to be Asian, black or from IMD Q1+2 than non- commuter students” – this is something Kulvinder Singh looked at earlier in the series. There were several links between the association of being a commuter and being from an underrepresented group such as a mature student, carer or from a geographical area of deprivation.

    One provider interrogated whether being a commuting student was a direct factor on student outcome metrics and opted that it, in fact, coincided with other risk factors.

    Mind the gap

    For plans that had identified a risk to the commuter student experience, a brief thematic analysis suggests continuation, completion and student outcomes metrics were most prevalent in the sample followed by cost (and transport costs) and its subsequent impact on belonging.

    A lack of flexible timetabling was highlighted several times as a structural challenge for commuting students and plans honed in on the preciousness of commuters’ time.

    Bridging the gap

    Many universities plan to implement student centric timetables to tackle barriers to engagement and include plans to inform students as early as possible about scheduled classes. Flexible modes of learning, better communication methods and early timetables then further reduces peak-travel commuting costs, easing financial pressures.

    A handful of universities offer pre-arrival events and bursaries, aimed at improving commuter student access. At Manchester Metropolitan University, for example, an introductory module to support students preparing for university was particularly valued by commuting students.

    Interventions also emphasised the importance of space, with providers reviewing physical and virtual facilities, creating dedicated spaces to study and relax and improving the visibility of existing commuter spaces. The University of York’s APP suggested a provision of subsidised accommodation on campus to support commuters to engage in evening and social events.

    Peer mentoring programmes, social prescribing, and the creation of commuter student networks are examples of belonging-based interventions. York St John University’s plan proposed social opportunities each month and drop-ins for commuters to be held as often as weekly on campus.

    Many plans recognised a need to better understand the commuter student population. This often manifested as a commitment to engage or set up working groups and projects. Some providers viewed additional research as a first step toward supporting commuters, while others built on existing work and recognised that ongoing consultation offered the best way to deliver support.

    As many of these plans have started to, counting commuters, recognising their experience is geographical and making them visible is the first step to service design with commuter students in mind. Our series has been exploring ways to support their experience through making space, pedagogy, data, shifting institutional thinking and transport agendas that may inspire providers ready to take the next step.

    This blog is part of our series on commuter students. Click here to see the other articles in the series.

    Source link

  • Understanding the commuter student paradox

    Understanding the commuter student paradox

    When we think about commuter students, the first thing that often comes to mind is the difficulties in balancing their studies with the demands of travel.

    We frequently talk about how their lives are more challenging when compared to their peers who live nearer to campus, given the time constraints and added cost pressures they are exposed to.

    However, a closer look reveals a fascinating paradox. Despite the perceived hardships, commuter students who progress with their studies can achieve better outcomes.

    At the University of Lancashire, our ongoing student working lives (SWL) project, which was set up to understand the prevalence and impact of part-time work on the student experience, has started to shed light on the unique experiences of commuter students.

    Our survey considers self-reported responses to questions related to students’ part-time work and university experiences, alongside linked student data to reveal a clearer picture of their non-university lives and their connection with student outcomes.

    Initial data from our latest wave of the SWL project suggests that while commuter students frequently experience tighter schedules due to increased travel commitments and other out-of-class responsibilities, they can often experience better outcomes in their university and non-university lives than their non-commuter peers.

    This data comes from our 2025 student working lives survey which is based on an institutional sample of 484 students, with permission to link data from 136 students.

    Our research extends the recent debate around the choice versus necessity of commuting by repositioning commuters, not as left behind, but as a group of students prepared to meet the challenges laid in front of them, and in some ways, better navigating challenges and excelling in their studies.

    Choose Life

    The survey’s results reinforce the common belief that commuter students have busy lives.

    In combination, commuter students are twice as likely to have caring responsibilities, tend to live in more deprived neighbourhoods (based on IMD quintile) and have a higher work and travel load than their non-commuting counterparts, resulting in less time to spend on study.

    However, questions of necessity or choice can imply that university is the most central thing in their lives, challenging whether the assumptions we hold about commuting students have the correct premise.

    Image of three bar charts outlining workload and travel by commuter status.

    Looking at our latest research, it tells us that commuters are more likely to spend longer working than non-commuter students. While an increased workload highlights the disadvantage some commuters experience, our findings reveal a more complex picture that requires a deeper dive into the lives of this student demographic.

    As such, the commuter students we surveyed achieved higher attainment on average (+2pp) when linking this to university records, despite a lower self-reported rating of belonging compared to their peers.

    Put bluntly, while commuting students feel slightly less attachment to the university and commit less time to study, they go on to receive better marks.

    While this identifies a positive outcome for those students in our study, we should be mindful of wider research suggesting that commuter students are at greater risk of withdrawing, given the acute nature of the challenge experienced. As the study progresses we’ll continue to track further longitudinal outcomes such as continuation, completion and progression over the coming months and years.

    Choose work

    In our study, when understanding experiences of work, commuter students reported that they felt their work was more meaningful, more productive and more fairly paid than their non-commuter peers.

    They also felt better supported at work by their colleagues and managers and felt their current job requirements and responsibilities would enhance future employment prospects. What can we take from this?

    Student population Student Working Lives – % Agree
    Is your work meaningful? Is your work productive? Do you feel fairly paid or rewarded? Do you feel supported by colleagues? Do you feel supported by managers? Do you feel your job enhances your future employment prospects?
    Commuter 43.5% 53.2% 47.2% 42.7% 37.5% 41.1%
    Non-Commuter 40.3% 39.8% 44.5% 38.6% 31.4% 30.9%

     

    It’s important to state that the quality of work outcomes, despite being slightly improved for commuter students, reinforce the findings from our 2024 SWL report and last year’s HEPI Student Academic Experience Survey – students are having to work more to deal with the increased cost of living and on the whole are not experiencing what can be considered as “good” work.

    However, commuter students appear to be negotiating their challenges exceptionally well and are more likely to have a job that supports their future career aspirations.

    While commuter students face unique challenges, are they effectively leveraging their time and resources to excel in their studies, leading to positive outcomes in various aspects of their lives?

    If so, could this add further weight to reframing the argument away from a one-dimensional deficit approach when talking about commuting students?

    We already know that commuter students often have busy lives. This fuller life however, with its many facets, could give them the direction and motivation to succeed in their studies and at work.

    They are not just students, they are employees, caregivers, and active members of their communities. Rather than being a deficit, these experiences can add to their educational success if they can be supported to leverage their experiences.

    Choose commuting

    It’s important for universities to recognise this clear paradox around commuter students. Time restrictions and commitments make things harder for commuter students to designate more time to their studies, in particular independent study that infringes on the family home.

    The benefits of having more time in the workplace, having a family and traveling can enrich their student experience and outcomes.

    By understanding and appreciating these unique experiences, universities can better support commuter and non-commuter students alike.

    At the University of Lancashire, we are feeding these insights into our institutional University of the Future programme. This focuses on curriculum transformation to enhance the student learning experience, the transition to block delivery to consider the pace learning aligns with student lives, and the introduction of a short course lifelong learning model that looks to meet the changing needs of students.

    Commuter students teach us that life’s challenges can also be its greatest strengths. Their ability to balance multiple responsibilities and still be able to achieve positive outcomes is a testament to their ability and determination, attributes the sector is committed to harnessing and employers are keen on developing in the workplace.

    As we continue to explore and understand their experiences in developing our project over the coming months, we can start to challenge assertions and learn valuable lessons that can benefit all students and allow more to “choose life.”

     

    This blog is part of our series on commuter students. Click here to see the other articles in the series.

    Source link

  • The value of the classroom in building belonging for commuter students

    The value of the classroom in building belonging for commuter students

    As highlighted throughout the commuter student series, the significant increase in commuters across the sector is beginning to influence many institutional approaches.

    These approaches have been varied but have included projects like making space for commuter students on campuses so that they can maximise their time and comfortably immerse themselves in the university experience.

    However, against a backdrop of a cost-of-living crisis, a cost of learning crisis has taken hold. Given the complexities of commuter students’ lives and responsibilities and the increasing costs of commuting, the “sticky campus” model is not always a viable option as the shift to a more transactional approach is becoming more prevalent.

    What educators, student-facing colleagues and decision makers need to identify is how they ensure time on campus adds value to the commuter student experience.

    The classroom as central

    My PhD research focuses on the experiences of ethnic minority commuter students, and how they develop their identity and sense of belonging whilst at university.

    Much of the research has found that commuter students are more likely to be from ethnic minority backgrounds, have employed work and caring responsibilities and come from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

    Exploring the experiences of participants in my research has revealed how the experiences within the timetabled teaching classroom carries particular significance for commuter students.

    This intersectionality of characteristics further emphasises the heterogenous nature of commuter students, and that speaking to, and understanding the experiences of students will help to understand how we can ensure their university experience is the best it can be.

    Whilst ensuring all students develop the subject specific knowledge is considered to be top of the list of how we add value, ensuring the classroom provides a space for students to develop networks and their community is one of the ways the classroom environment can better support commuters.

    Commuter students are struggling to adapt to pedagogies and policies that are typically designed for students who have relocated. This has started to come to the fore in the responses from students who are perceiving significant value of their experience in the approaches adopted within the classroom.

    Findings from my research signify that a sense of belonging is felt by commuter students, both at a course and institutional level, and that sense of belonging is very much driven by the experiences they have in the classroom.

    Finding space to belong

    To develop this sense of belonging, students often mentioned the importance of space and time.

    They spoke about the need to have space and time within their timetabled session to catch up with peers, have the time to speak to academic and professional services teams face to face and to ensure that classroom activities link to the outcomes they are hoping to achieve. To assist in facilitating this, consideration around how taught sessions are delivered, building space into weekly module delivery to maximise the potential for students to get the most out of their time on campus can develop and help foster this sense of belonging and community.

    Commuters are constantly making cost-benefit calculations, tying with the transactional approach to education. And the richness of these connections, however short and sporadic, can provide valuable outcomes and develop this sense of community.

    Not participating in activities outside of the classroom is not perceived as negatively impacting on their experience, and nor does the act of commuting always limit their ability to engage in activities, but there is an opportunity cost that is often considered.

    Differing approaches amongst tutors can impact on the experience students encounter, and the findings from my research signify a correlation between those classroom encounters and the sense of belonging for commuter students.

    Identity searching

    The institutional identity is also particularly relevant given that the students who are commuting are likely to live within the region, and this further develops the potential affinity they have with their institution.

    My research speaks to the importance of commuter students’ feelings of “we are all getting the same experience and opportunity” in ensuring they are not left feeling disadvantaged.

    This is not to suggest that engaging in activities outside of the classroom are not of value to commuter students, the benefits of engaging in extra-curricular activities is often considerable to the majority of students. The holistic experience of being in university should, however, support in developing the capital of commuter students.

    The classroom should be a space where all students enjoy the learning opportunities that higher education offers, providing the platform on which the student experience is built.

    For commuter students in particular, this space and environment is becoming increasingly important in their overall journey.

    And if we are to ensure an equitable experience for all students, providing a classroom experience which not only focusses on subject content, but provides time and space for interaction and the building of individual identity and community can help support this journey.

     

    This blog is part of our series on commuter students. Click here to see the other articles in the series.

    Source link

  • Building a public transport agenda for commuter students

    Building a public transport agenda for commuter students

    If you have been to Greater Manchester in the last few years, you will have noticed that more and more yellow buses have started to appear.

    The Bee Network fully launched across the region on the 5th January 2025 – the yellow bus takeover is now complete.

    When all buses in the region became a part of the Bee Network – the integrated transport network for Greater Manchester – this was a significant moment for the city’s devolution journey. It became the first place in England, outside of London, to have buses back under public control.

    One of the Greater Manchester Student Partnership’s (GMSP) priorities is to improve students’ experience of transport across the region, the launch of the Bee Network is a key opportunity to make that happen.

    Institutions often define commuters differently and in Greater Manchester we already have a large proportion of students “traditionally” commuting. However traditional residential students are living further away from campus due to rising costs and are more reliant on public transport to get to classes.

    The GMSP has been thinking about how we can use the Greater Manchester Combined Authorities’ powers to support commuter students in their widest of definitions.

    A backdrop of devolution

    Since the coalition government of the early 2010s, devolution has been growing and Greater Manchester and the West Midlands have been the guinea pigs of the plan.

    Putting buses back under public control was a large part of the devolution deals and settlements, with the Bus Service Act 2017 being introduced so regions can take back control of buses.

    For context, in the 1980s bus travel in the UK was deregulated – anyone with a licence and a bus could run any bus service they wanted. The act allows Metro Mayors and in the future local authorities to franchise bus services. In doing so they can set up routes, tickets and costs for bus operators to bid for.

    Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, got the ball rolling on this quickly.

    In the 2024 general election, Labour had promised more devolved powers for regional mayors that have already been elected. In December, the government announced the Better Buses Bill which will give more powers to local authorities to own their own bus companies.

    Students use buses to get around their city but commuter students are not just reliant on buses, they are also reliant on trams and trains and other forms of transport.

    Building a student city

    The new bus fare cap rising will be a further strain on student cost of living and inevitably impact on student engagement on campus – for traditional commuters and residential students. The benefits of a mayor and devolved transport powers mean that isn’t the case here, fares are staying put at £2.

    As of last month, if you “tap in” on the tram and the bus with your contactless card, it all falls under the same ticket.

    This again is welcomed by GMSP, but this does not reduce the price of students who have to travel on both modes of public transport.

    This improves accessibility but not necessarily affordability.

    If they take multiple journeys a week on both a tram and a bus, it will cost £41. There is currently no student rate on trams or on the “tap in” system that is about to be introduced.

    From December 2026 until December 2028, the Bee Network will gain control of eight major commuter train lines. Greater Manchester could then become the best city for student public transport in the country, but only if Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM), universities and student unions work together.

    Busy making promises

    The GMSP has been advocating for cheaper, more reliable transport with the mayor and TfGM.

    In 2022, officers from GMSP wrote to the mayor asking for a £1.50 bus single for all students. The mayor responded by saying that although he wanted to do something like this, until he had full control on the Bee Network, that would not be possible.

    In the mayor’s 2024 mayoral election manifesto, he announced at a mayoral hustings for students that he was to introduce a 18-21 monthly half price bus pass, bringing down the cost from £80 to £40.

    This was welcomed by GMSP to an extent, but we recognised that a lot of students, especially commuter students, do not fall into this category. And termly student tickets that are already on offer would work out cheaper for most students anyway.

    Since the Bee Network fully launched, we have seen no sign of this offer appearing.

    Student transport agenda

    The big question is, how can the universities, student unions and transport authorities work together to make life better for commuter students?

    Whilst we’re lucky in Greater Manchester to have a forum to meet with and discuss things like patronage, pricing and safety, getting all partners into the room is not as easy.

    We have big plans to make Greater Manchester the best place to be a student, and to do that we need to think big with things like creating a student living and staying strategy for the city region.

    This would bring together all these partners to create a long-term strategy for students in the city region, with one of themes being transport. Having these three partners working together is key for the success of any long-term transport strategy in the region.

    TfGM holds a lot of the power, including data on patronage and which routes students are using the most. Universities hold influence and potential financial influence, which could be beneficial for introducing new routes and discounting prices for students.

    Universities have a lot of data about students, especially on where they live, and that information could be used to target key routes for commuter students. And student unions are important as the voice of students.

    One of the mayor’s key aims for students in Greater Manchester is retaining talent. An element of this is making the Greater Manchester universities more attractive for potential students from Greater Manchester. If you want to make local universities more desirable for commuter students, improving the reliability, access and price of transport would go a very long way.

    Whilst Greater Manchester has a unique opportunity to improve the commuter student experience, more devolution is on its way. In the meantime, the more connections and collaborations that exist between local authorities, universities, student unions and transport providers, the better.

    Collaboration is key to making these ideas a reality and in building transport strategies in university towns and cities, commuter students need to be at the heart of decision making.

     

    This blog is part of our series on commuter students. Click here to see the other articles in the series.

    Source link

  • Making space for commuter students

    Making space for commuter students

    Residential living at university has been prevalent since the 15th Century, originally as a way to instil discipline and promote a moral education amongst students.

    University College London’s founding in the 1820s as the first non-residential UK university disrupted this tradition. However, debates around the correct model of living have continued ever since.

    The Robbins Report in 1963 described the “educational and social advantages of living away from home” and it was often understood that the desire to live in halls was to emulate the “Oxbridge ideal.”

    The rise of 1960s plate glass universities, with new on-campus halls led the way for the expected “way of being” for university students.

    As recently as 2019 the Augar Report stated “leaving home to go to university is a deep-seated part of the English culture.”

    Clearly not much has changed.

    Across my time as a student and working in higher education, it was always apparent that space is crucial to the student experience for commuter students where they don’t have a residence on campus.

    Whilst the debate around commuter students has shifted in recent years with the introduction of commuters into the Equality of Opportunity Risk Register, more holistic support is needed.

    In fact, making space for commuter students is not just about their teaching and learning but it’s also about accommodating their extracurriculars and social lives.

    As rising numbers of commuter students challenge the historical ideas of what students should look like, how can institutions make space for commuters on campus?

    The rest of the student experience

    Arriving at university, it became clear I was one of two commuter students in my cohort of around 200 and that this was going to create problems for me.

    The extra curricular student experience was defined by student society socials and trips, socialising in halls and consuming alcohol on nights out.

    It was awkward when the first question I’d always get asked in first year was “what halls are you in?”

    Skip forward to my final year dissertation, I investigated the barriers to social engagement for commuter students at Leeds University.

    My research findings from six interviews with current commuter students found participation in social activities was difficult for many for financial, transport, religious and other reasons.

    We respectively think a lot about supporting commuter students’ experience of teaching and learning on and off campus but the student experience isn’t just limited to the classroom.

    Issues included last trains home being too early, spaces of engagement centred around halls, hidden costs to participate such as additional meals or transport and hygiene barriers (sleeping on sofas and not having their toiletries).

    Commuter students have often been invisible in the way institutions treated them, and we struggled to find each other due to the stigma, with constant questioning by peers “don’t you feel like you’re missing out?”

    Rush hour socials

    As a student, finding people to support the creation of the Leeds University Commuters’ Society was challenging.

    From my own experiences of imposter syndrome and othering, it was essential to create a society to address the needs of this group and advocate for further inclusion.

    I founded the Leeds University Commuters’ Society to find others with shared experiences, to share travel tips, support wellbeing and hold “rush hour” socials.

    Through my dissertation research, I also explored commuter students’ sense of belonging. I found commuter students who worked for the university in part-time roles, such as ambassadors, had a stronger sense of belonging and pride. The society also boosted feelings of belonging for the students, and some had found lifelong friends on their course who they didn’t realise were commuter students.

    Finding space

    The pandemic shifted working patterns for many staff, plus the opening of a new building on campus freed up space. The society campaigned for a common lounge for commuter students.

    The Student Ideas Fund granted us £5000 to create the lounge, originally on a two-year pilot basis. The lounge contains a refurbished social area with a games table, TV, kitchen, lockers and private study space.

    The kitchen offers students the opportunity to save money on lunches and evening meals, as students previously relied on eating out or consuming to feel comfortable in a cafe.

    The lounge is now a permanent feature of campus and is visited on campus tours and mentioned at open days.

    Where there’s space in residential halls, the University of Leeds team are consulting with commuter students about opening a commuter hotel, offering stays between 1-14 nights, at budget prices.

    Commuter students would then be able to participate in a range of activities like attending society socials, concerts, theatre, sports events, and staying the night before a morning exam.

    By giving commuter students a space, either a common room, lounge or even a temporary bed for a night in a hotel, it gives them autonomy and agency to fully participate in the wider student experience.

    They can participate in the things that make university enriching without being at a disadvantage.

    The narrative around commuter students has shifted significantly since the Robbins and Augar report with commuters being included in more Access and Participation Plans in England. However, cost of living pressures are pushing even more students to consider commuting and more still needs to be done.

    Making spaces on campus for commuter students is one way of enabling them to have a more enriching and wide-reaching student experience.

    Institutions could find spare spaces to give to commuter societies, advertise them as commuter lounges or utilise spare rooms to offer short stays for commuter students. Above all, listening to what commuter students want is the best way of including and further supporting this group.

     

    This blog is part of our series on commuter students. Click here to see the other articles in the series.

    Source link

  • Which universities recruit commuter students?

    Which universities recruit commuter students?

    It’s not a hard-and-fast rule, but in general commuter students (whatever definition you are using) tend to be those who lived locally before they became students.

    It’s an intersection – if you are recruiting locally (upskilling your local area) you are most likely to be recruiting students who are already living in the local area and will choose something other than the traditional on campus experience.

    As institutional recruitment strategies change over the years, so will the makeup of your student body. Policy pressures, and – frankly – the need to reach underserved groups for more pragmatic financial reasons mean that more people are able to consider higher education in some form.

    This is going to include stuff like sub-degree qualifications, provision aimed at mature students who want to upskill or re-skill mid-career, and more vocational qualifications that link in to the needs of particular local employers.

    State of the data

    There’s been various research reports (most notably from the Sutton Trust) that have used custom slices of HESA or UCAS data to identify commuter students. Until now it’s been quite difficult to replicate these analyses with public data, but the invention of HESA student table 62 and some nifty spatial updates from the good people at Tableau allows us to get fairly sophisticated with public data.

    Here I’ve allowed you to make your own determination of what constitutes a local student based on the number of miles from your university’s main campus – you can select a provider of interest with the filter at the top, and then zero in on modes and levels of study of interest.

    [Full screen]

    The map will show you which local authorities are in scope (marked in pink) – the students that hail from those pink areas are shown in the bar chart at the side for each year, and the proportion of all students (at that provider with the level and mode as selected) is marked on the bars.

    It’s far from perfect – one particular issue comes with the use of local authorities (as of late 2023, local democracy fans) as the unit of analysis. Because I can’t tell you where in, say, Somerset, a particular student lives we have to use the distance from the central point of the local authority in question. This is fine for your smaller council areas, but for big rural districts it causes problems.

    Another issue will be the population of each area. There’s loads of potential students in Birmingham or London, perhaps less in Northumberland or Devon. If your main campus is nearer the former than the latter, your figures are going to be flattered.

    If not you then who?

    If local students aren’t going to your provider, where are they going? I have a chart for that too – select your local authority district at the top, and the rest of the controls work as normal. In general local students do study locally – but there are exceptions.

    [Full screen]

    The inevitable ranking

    So – which providers have a low proportion of students from their local area? If you look at full time undergraduate recruitments the winners tend to (as above) be London-based or northern civic universities with strong links to the local area. Bath (especially, with two providers represented at the bottom end) and the wider south west are more likely to see students leave the area to study, and specialist providers are less likely to recruit locally than larger providers offering more courses in more areas.

    [Full screen]

    Though a first thought might see commuter students (and local recruitment) as an issue that doesn’t figure in the plans of our more prestigious providers, the reality is complex and pays no heed to your REF results. There are areas of the country where people tend to study locally – there are providers that are particularly good at recruiting what are likely to be their own recently qualified undergraduates on to masters courses. And large cities like London and Birmingham have their own specific gravity. In other words you almost certainly have students who commute – and thus have a very different experience of higher education to their peers – at your provider. And you need to offer them support.

    This blog is part of our series on commuter students. Click here to see the other articles in the series.

    Source link

  • Supporting commuter students with the right information

    Supporting commuter students with the right information

    Commuter student support takes different forms, from student lounges to travel bursaries.

    However, when it comes to something as simple as the information that universities provide to prospective students and current students, it remains stubbornly focused on traditional, residential students.

    As a result, commuters make untenable choices at the applicant stage, find student life difficult to navigate and feel a profound lack of belonging, throughout their student experience.

    Getting it right at the start is as important as throughout.

    What information is out there

    In our research, which we are currently preparing for publication, we talked to commuter students and uncovered the practical impacts of a lack of information. Students suggested that their choice of institution, choice of course and the choice either to commute or relocate may have been different, if they had known about the personal, financial and educational impacts of commuting.

    They didn’t just talk about travel information – bus routes, train times, car parking – which is still important and largely missing from university webpages and prospectuses. They focused more on their need for information to help them to navigate life as a student who commutes.

    Commuter students told us that this absence of information suggested to them that universities don’t see commuters, leading them to feel that they don’t belong and they don’t matter.

    The hidden curriculum

    Our findings suggest that commuters need information in two areas, “rules of the game” and “sense of belonging.”

    These are the terms developed by Dr Katharine Hubbard and colleagues to describe the two domains of the “hidden curriculum” that universities must make explicit, if non-traditional students are to succeed at university.

    Our research sought to address this hidden curriculum for commuter students by developing best practice guidance for information that universities should provide to support commuters in their choices, transition and day-to-day university experience.

    We randomly selected 30 universities from the 147 institutions currently registered in the UK. We entered their website and searched “commuter students.”

    We downloaded and assessed the content and utility of the first four search results and then used Google search to find “university name commuter students” and followed the same method.

    We found that the hidden curriculum for commuters is very real. Very few institutions have information for commuter students. Very few have information available to students pre-application, to enable an informed decision and very few have information specifically to support commuters.

    Those that do, tend to focus on commuters in the negative, discouraging travel to university, in a sustainability context and framing commuting as a challenge and encouraging relocation to halls of residence.

    Getting it right

    But there are universities that are getting it right. Our research identified some best practices.

    Some institutions provide information about being a commuter at every stage of the student lifecycle and for every student touchpoint. Ideally, including a commuter student equivalent for all information, advice and guidance that is provided.

    This is especially important whenever students are making a choice – of institution, course, module, accommodation – and whenever you are providing a service – extra-curricular activities, support and other resources. Not only will this enable informed choice, it will increase the visibility of commuters, which will enhance their sense of belonging.

    It’s also important to be clear about learning and teaching, to enable commuter students to make informed decisions about how possible it is to succeed as a commuter. For example, is attendance mandatory for all taught sessions? How many days a week will students be timetabled to attend and when will they know? Do students have to be able to physically access the library? Do you provide on-commute learning options?

    Institutions should also ensure that information for commuters is easy to find and take a joined-up approach. We found that the best information for students was content like blogs written by commuters chronicling a day in their life, presenting “life hacks” or linking students to a commuter community. These were available via student societies, or the students’ union, which often aren’t linked to from the institution’s webpages.

    Information should be “student first.” For example, ensure that travel information is available to support commuters to access their learning, rather than information about sustainability, or to discourage driving. Most of the travel information that we reviewed was abrasive in its tone, highlighting the inaccessibility of campus to car drivers and focusing on promoting modes that commuters shouldn’t use – this is noble, but it isn’t useful and it adds to the feeling that commuters are not welcome.

    Another example is, rather than linking to your Access and Participation Plan as evidence that you consider the needs of commuters, interpret this and talk directly to them.

    Finally, most of the information that we reviewed highlighted the problematic nature of commuting – but it can be a positive choice. Information provided by students, for students, was especially effective in promoting the benefits of commuting, supporting students to navigate life as a commuter, from a practical and emotional perspective.

    Providing commuters with more honest information about the multiple costs and benefits of being a commuter student, at every stage of the student lifecycle, alongside practical support to help them to overcome these, will support students to succeed. It demonstrates, through information alone, that students are welcome and that they belong.

     

    This blog is part of our series on commuter students, click here to read more.

    Source link

  • Shifting institutional thinking about commuter students

    Shifting institutional thinking about commuter students

    As more and more students travel from their home to study, grappling with all the challenges of supporting commuter students has become the norm for the sector.

    How do we create a sense of belonging for these students, how do we make their time on campus as positive as possible and how do we increase attendance and then keep them on campus? It’s often approached as a problem to fix.

    And at the University of Worcester we did just this. And we’ve had some great solutions – providing fridges and microwaves, so commuters could bring and store food. Students services have run “fancy a cuppa” sessions throughout the week so that students have space to gather at no cost and many academic teams are developing flexible approaches to delivery that recognise the challenges of travel.

    But behind the scenes colleagues were starting to recognise that the reasons for commuting and the challenges this created were complex, multi-faceted and far reaching.

    Commuting students are now the majority of our students and this impacts on the experience for all students – getting it right for commuting students means getting it right for all students.

    We need to shift our thinking from commuters as a problem to solve to instead how can the university change and adapt across the institution to meet the evolving needs of our students.

    We needed to listen

    We needed to understand the why, the how and the impact of daily travel to university. And to do this we needed to raise the profile of these students with those tasked with decision making across the university.

    We launched “listening lunches” to combat survey fatigue and facilitate comfortable spaces in the middle of the day where students could drop in on their own terms, have a free lunch and share anything that was on their minds.

    Travelling to campus daily involved managing caring responsibilities, school runs, late or cancelled trains and the impact of travel disruption caused by flooding and road closures. When students were unable to attend it meant disrupted classes, low attendance and made it harder for students to maintain group assignments.

    It wasn’t all negative. Students shared examples of thoughtful and reactive responses from staff who were aware of these challenges and were adapting their practice accordingly. Crucially, this wasn’t formalised or widely applied.

    Where staff were finding ways to support students’ engagement and students had the opportunity to talk to staff about their experience and seeing things being done as a result, this improved how students felt about the university.

    Examples where students felt heard, and where their engagement was not measured in attendance but in participation, were particularly positive.

    Making a case for change.

    While we had anecdotal evidence from multiple sources, it wasn’t being captured in our formal feedback mechanisms, and therefore wasn’t being centred in discussions.

    As part of our sustainability initiatives, we have run a student travel survey for a number of years – surveys were widely seen as important in shaping students’ experience – this was an opportunity to formally gather the feedback we had had anecdotally.

    The surveys were adapted to incorporate questions relating to “commuting students” and we asked students what measures could be put in place to support their participation. Unsurprisingly a lot of the feedback was around the cost of travel, including the cost and availability of car parking and the impact of poor public transport.

    Our second round of listening lunches took the feedback from this survey back to the students as a series of discussion prompts. A complex picture started to emerge that touched on areas such as sustainability, widening participation, retention, campus experience, learning and teaching and support services.

    These are not necessarily areas that have always had a central focus on commuters.

    We need to talk about commuter students on a much broader scale across institutions.

    To do this, we’re sharing our understanding across the university, via formal committees and working groups as well as building a diverse network of colleagues who can centre the needs of commuter students in any and all conversations about the student experience.

    For example, colleagues who are now members of the transport and travel group have been able to support campus-based students needing to travel to placement with timely and affordable university managed transport.

    Building an institutional agenda

    In order to adequately support commuter students, support can’t be centred in one department. Here’s some ways to think about commuter students across an institution.

    Find ways to first centre the student voice in building your understanding of how students participate and engage when living off campus. Then consider ways to broaden the conversation to include colleagues from less obvious areas of the university such as sustainability, EDI, retention and outcomes, resources and facilities as well as continuing to include colleagues from student services and academic schools.

    Reframe the way you consider engagement to go beyond attendance and towards participation and consider that there are more students impacted by commuting than you may first think.

    Don’t view commuters as the problem, but instead a valued and core part of your student community. Making sure your university works for commuters means that it also works for all students.

    Long breaks between lectures on campus are common and when it comes to downtime between lectures, a study or hospitality space isn’t always sufficient. Meaningful things to do on campus makes commuters feel part of a community. At Worcester we’ve co-created the “You Matter” programme to facilitate this with drop-in creative focused activities during the day.

    Finally commuter students’ lives are busy and complex. They place a great deal of importance on how close the university is to their home, i.e. relocating is not a priority or an option due to complex responsibilities. The cost and availability of transport options have a significant impact on students’ ability to attend and students are often juggling family, part-time work and study in an increasingly challenging financial climate.

    The more institutions begin by understanding this, the better. Only then can you build an agenda across an institution to recognise, value and support commuters.

     

    This blog is part of our series on commuter students, click here to read more.

    Source link

  • The potential of educational podcasts for commuter students

    The potential of educational podcasts for commuter students

    Engaging students in learning outside the classroom can often be a challenge, but podcasts might be a simple yet versatile tool we’re overlooking.

    As the number of commuting students rises across institutions, we recognise that students are time poor. There is, however, the potential of using travel time as an opportunity for students to work but also relax and many students use their commute time as an opportunity to prepare for teaching. Podcasting is one of the ways we can design our pedagogy to fit the busy lives of commuter students.

    Think about how you listen to podcasts, most likely while you’re doing other things like driving, cooking or walking. There’s a versatility to it.

    How many of the learning resources we offer allow students to learn on-the-go?

    Education on-the-go

    Most podcast listeners will tell you the convenience of audio-centric and on-the-go content is key to their success. BBC data suggests that about three in four podcast listeners do so while doing something else, so even podcasts that have a video option available need to be planned and created with an audio-only format in mind.

    Offering that versatility also comes at a cost. It’s important to recognise the fact that students might be on a busy bus, or looking for the timetable for their next train connection. We probably won’t have a student’s full attention, and that means that we need to carefully consider the kind of educational content that’s going to work in this format.

    Successful podcasts tend to be focused on experiential storytelling. They are usually fluid and conversational, so don’t be afraid to lean into that. Storytelling gives us emotional responses, helping students connect abstract ideas to real-world implications. A podcast will be much more successful if you give depth and meaning to something a student has already learned, rather than delivering the learning itself.

    Let’s take data analysis as an example. Instead of focusing on the technical process of analysing data, you could discuss stories of the impact of data bias or ethical dilemmas in data usage. Give your students food for thought rather than core learning, use it to turn the numbers into narrative and give a deeper meaning to your classroom content.

    It can also be a good idea to supplement your podcast with a short interactive activity, either online or at the start of your next learning session. Ask students to reflect on the podcast and their key takeaways from it. It can be a great starting point to encourage deeper learning.

    A how to guide

    Another core aspect of successful podcasts is authenticity. You don’t want your podcast to sound like a job interview. Natural conversations foster a sense of authenticity, which is key to keeping listeners engaged. A key part of this comes from the way you prepare for a podcast. Discussion points as opposed to questions allows both you and your guest to think more holistically about the topic and can make a huge difference when it comes to making the conversation flow authentically.

    We’ve found it’s best to give more flexibility and aim for shorter episodes. Splitting a conversation up into bitesize chunks gives students the option to listen to all episodes in one go, or a bit at a time. Starting with a few episodes, around 12-20 minutes each, will offer your students a lot more flexibility than a single 1-hour long podcast.

    Thankfully the technical and logistical aspects of recording podcasts have developed rapidly over the last few years and it’s very easy to get started. Advancements like text-to-speech editing and speech enhancement let you record fully online and get incredible results without any technical knowledge or high-end equipment. A lot of podcasting software now produces automatic text transcription supporting accessibility and allowing students to engage with the content in multiple formats.

    And by framing these resources as useful for students to “listen to on-the-go,” gives students permission to use and access resources in ways which work for them during their busy lives. It recognises commuter students and acknowledges busy student lives and gives them a new innovative way to engage with their studies.

    Getting started

    If you’re interested in giving it a go, here are some ideas to get you started.

    A conversation about a specific assessment: contact a student who did well on an assessment last year and ask if they would be happy to share their experiences. Students can get ideas and inspiration from how they have approached it, what worked well and what they would do differently.

    Interviews with industry experts is another way to frame a podcast. Working professionals don’t always have the time to travel to campus and prepare a lecture for your students. That might be different if they just had to join an online call for a natural conversation. Recording it as a podcast also gives you a reusable resource for future cohorts.

    Student Q&As where students can submit their own questions about a topic or assessment and discuss them in a podcast. This could be an idea to explore on your own, with another lecturer, or with professionals in the industry.

    It’s clear that using podcasts as a form of education comes with a lot of challenges, but it also offers a vast world of opportunities and flexibility for students. Where students face further challenges to engage and attend classes, it is worth considering how educational podcasts may be a mechanism so that resources work around busy and complex student lives. For commuting students, a great deal of time is spent on public transport and in maximising their time, providing resources that are engaging, useful and timely is a step in the right direction. And in designing resources specifically with commuter students in mind it recognises their experiences and allows them to engage authentically.

    And to make podcasts work for commuter students in an educational context we need to be realistic about the challenges students face and create content that works in a podcast format rather than shoehorning existing content into a new format. If we nail that, then podcasts could become a very useful tool for delivering educational content that fits around students and heightens engagement.

    Source link

  • Podcast: Protection, visas, commuter students

    Podcast: Protection, visas, commuter students








    By submitting you agree to our terms and conditions

    Source link