Commuter Students and Higher Education Success

2951 Words6 Pages

Conceptual frameworks serve as guides allowing people to view complex organizations from different perspectives. Morgan (2006) presents nine frames in the form of metaphors: (a) Machines, (b) Organisms, (c) Brains, (d) Cultures, (e) Political Systems, (f) Psychic Prisons, (g) Flux and Transformation, and (h) Instruments of Domination. Bolman and Deal (2008) present four frames: (a) Structural, (b) Human Resource, (c) Political, and (d) Symbolic. No single framework can provide a complete picture of an organization, so using multiple frames provide a more complete organizational perspective. This paper describes three frames: Psychic Prisons, Political, and Organizations as Organisms; and uses a review of literature on commuter students in higher education to illustrate these frames.
Overview of Commuter Students in Higher Education
Newbold, Mehta, and Forbus (2010) define commuter students as those who do not live on campus; this population makes-up approximately 75% of students in colleges and universities in the United States. During the 1960s through 1980s, new federal and state policies and programs, such as the Higher Education Act of 1965 that created need-based financial aid programs, expanded access to higher education, causing a rapid growth of commuter students (Kim & Rury, 2011). Commuter students brought unique needs and challenges, including feelings of isolation, the need to balance multiple life roles, different relationships and support systems, and financial and time considerations of housing and transportation costs (Newbold, Mehta, & Forbus, 2011). Despite this influx of commuter students, the environment and structure of institutions failed to satisfy commuter student needs. Instead, colleges and uni...

... middle of paper ...

...), 47-54. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.vt.edu:8080/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/196354500?accountid=14826
Newbold, J. J., Mehta, S. S., & Forbus, P. (2011). Commuter students: Involvement and identification with an institution of higher education. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 15(2), 141-153. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.vt.edu:8080/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/886550725?accountid=14826
Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). The academic capitalist knowledge/learning regime. In S. Slaughter & G. Rhoades, Academic capitalism and the new economy (pp. 305-338). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Smith, B. M. (1989). The personal development of the commuter student: What is known from the comparisons with resident students? An ERIC review. Community College Review, 17(1), 47-56. doi: 10.1177/009155218901700107

Open Document