Success Central: Examining the Relationship Between Peer Coaching and Success of Residential vs. Commuter College Students

Abstract

Success Central is a peer mentoring program developed at a mid-size regional university to support the persistence of college students. Success Central peer mentors use college life coaching techniques to help mentees build the skills necessary for college success. This paper will begin with an introduction to issues affecting the persistence of residential versus commuter students. The differential impact that Success Central has on residential versus commuter student success will be examined via statistical analyses. The paper will end with a discussion of the results and case examples illustrating the model.

Keywords

persistence retention peer mentoring peer coaching resident students commuter students

Introduction

There are multiple benefits to a college education for individuals and society. Those who earn a bachelor's degree have higher wages, higher rates of employment, and higher lifetime earnings than those without a bachelor's degree (Ma et al., 2019). College graduates often have access to a wider range of job opportunities and are more likely to find positions that offer additional benefits. However, the key to these positive outcomes is completion of a college degree. Research conducted by the National Student Clearing house Research Center (2021) found that the persistence rate of students beginning college in 2019 was only 73.9%. This persistence rate refers to students continuing pursuit of higher education at any university, not just the one they initially enrolled in. When looking at students who re-enroll at their same university, the percentage decreases even further to about 66% (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, 2021). Over 25% of all students are not continuing their education. It is important to understand the factors affecting student persistence. One such factor is housing status, or residency on campus.

College adjustment is associated with student persistence and one of the main predictors of college adjustment, especially in a social context, is residency status (Melendez, 2019). Melendez found that whether a student lived on or off campus had a significant impact on how well the student adjusted to college. Students living off campus and working were more likely to leave college compared to students living on campus with part-time jobs (Bozick, 2007). In addition to increased persistence, residential students tend to have greater academic success. López Turley & Wodtke (2010) found that at liberal arts universities, those who live on campus have significantly higher GPAs than those who live off campus. Yet at least one study suggests that commuter student academic success can rival that of residential students when the campus has support services and activities that can accommodate commuter students (Simpson & Burnett, 2017).

Purpose

Prior studies have demonstrated that Success Central peer mentoring supports the persistence of diverse types of under graduate students in their pursuit of a college degree (Simmons et al., 2019; Simmons & Shea Smith, 2020) but no study has examined it's effect on residential vs. commuter students. Success Central trains peer mentors to use college life coaching techniques in their mentoring relationships. This paper examines the success of commuter versus residential students receiving Success Central peer mentoring. The paper will describe the intervention in detail, present and discuss data examining outcomes of students involved in Success Central compared to a matched comparison group, and present case examples illustrating how the intervention benefits students.

Residential Status and Student Success

Commuter students and residential students have varying university experiences. Priorities of commuting students may differ from residents. Their home base is outside the college environment, so many only spend as much time on campus as is necessary for their courses. Commuters struggle to balance college commitments with employment and other outside obligations (Servies, 1999). College success programs tend to focus on student activities and increasing the attraction to campus (Switzer, 1988). These differences in priorities mean that success intervention programs targeted toward residents may not work for commuter students. Academic assistance, when convenient and offered, was used by commuter students (Servies, 1999). However, this assistance needs to be flexible and accessible (Simpson & Burnett, 2017). Resident students report more involvement on campus. They are more likely to participate in on-campus activities, interact with staff and peers, and have minimal stressors from commuting back and forth (Astin, 1993). However, resident students were more likely to engage in poor behaviors that influence academics. Such behaviors included: going to parties, smoking, drinking, oversleeping, and skipping classes (Astin, 1993). Conversely, residing at home can provide structure that benefits the academic performance of commuter students, particularly when a campus has supports and activities that make it easier for commuter student involvement and supports their success (Simpson & Burnett, 2017).

Peer Mentoring

Mentoring, for this reason, is a potentially flexible success intervention program for both commuter and resident students. Such a program encourages more social and academic integration of both kinds of students (Servies, 1999). Peer mentors provide emotional and social support as well as advice on choosing classes and managing work-life balance, which is instrumental for commuter students (Dennis et al., 2005). Since commuter students are less likely to identify with the university, a mentor increases a sense of belonging, which in turn helps persistence (Secreti, 2018). Tinto's (1975) interactionist model of student attrition explains similar data for all types of college students. Tinto argues that integration socially and academically is the key element when a student contemplates withdrawal. This integration is more impactful than a person's individual background and characteristics. A peer mentor can aid this social and academic integration that is instrumental to student success. Creating a sense of belonging and encouraging other on-campus relationships may increase persistence among mentored students.

A mentor's role also consists of providing knowledge of on-campus academic resources that can help students adapt to the college environment. Mitchell found that mentees actively engaged in a peer mentoring program reported higher grades as well as methods of studying (Mitchell, 2013). These mentees were more likely to use the academic resources provided to them.

The relationship between the mentor and mentee is also important. It is crucial to hire both traditional and nontraditional advising staff to ensure all types of students have someone they can relate to. When asked, students report the most important characteristic was their mentor's major (Mitchell, 2013). Outside of major, the highest-ranked characteristics desired in a mentor were being approachable, available, and friendly. Mentors were considered most impactful when mentees perceived them as organized, available, and intuitive (Mitchell, 2013). These characteristics found in a mentor come in the form of a good student with academic and social experience. A diverse group of mentors allows mentees to connect personally with the mentor and seek advice on navigating the first year of college from a relatable source.

Mitchell (2013) found that students reported using a mentor most often for navigating the university's academic environment and resources available. This was closely followed by help navigating the social environment of the university. Of these mentees, 75% stayed in the program for at least six months, with some continuing for more than 12 months. Mentoring for both commuter and residential students has a positive impact on their college experience, socially and academically.

What is College Life Coaching?

College life coaching encourages students to “make their own decisions, think more deeply about what they want to get out of college, and work to shape their college experience” (Anft, 2018, p. 5). The student is viewed as an expert in their own life and the job of the coach is to establish a relationship that will facilitate the student to think through the goals they want to accomplish and strategize how to achieve those goals. In this partnership, mentors can guide students to proactively anticipate any barriers or challenges to goal achievement and collaborate with the student to develop strategies for overcoming these obstacles. According to NACADA, a successful coaching approach involves the following: 1) create a safe space to establish a trusting relationship, 2) guide students to clarify intentions, 3) inspire action through powerful questions, and 4) offer accountability to maximize progress and forward movement (National Academic Advising Association [NACADA], as cited in Simmons & Shea Smith, 2020).

College life coaching involves using the before mentioned approach to identify academic and non- academic factors that affect a student's success, such as work or family challenges, sense of belonging, time, management, study skills, and financial issues. College life coaching has demonstrated results in enhancing the persistence and graduation rates of undergraduate students (Anft, 2018; Bettinger & Baker, 2013).

What is Success Central?

The majority of college life coaches are post-graduate professionals employed in college advising and related student support offices/programs. Success Central is an innovative intervention due to its focus on training and supervising junior and senior undergraduate students to use college life coaching techniques in their mentoring relationships with first and second-year students. The goal of the intervention is to combine the power of peer-support (Coleman Tucker, 2014; Schwartz et al., 2018) with the life coaching pedagogy in a manner that would improve the persistence rates of the target population. Additionally, Success Central is expected to impact the students’ subjective perceptions of their college experience and academic skills (Simmons & Shea Smith, 2020).

Success Central was developed at a mid-size northeast regional university that consists of roughly 12,000 students. In spring of 2014, a consortium of staff and professors from multiple departments and offices was awarded an “Innovation Grant” from the Office of Academic Affairs to develop an intervention addressing the persistence of African American and Latino/a students. Based on promising results, the intervention was supported by the university to expand its focus to supporting the persistence of first-generation and first-year students. Currently, Success Central selects, trains, and supervises up to thirty junior and senior peer mentors a year to mentor 150–200 first- and second-year students, most of whom are first-generation college students. During training, chosen mentors are introduced to the college life coaching model used by Success Central.

There are four phases to the Success Central coaching model, which are integral to each mentoring session (Simmons et al., 2019). Phase I is “Connection” and is a primary focus of the first one to two sessions. A key outcome of the Connection phase is to build rapport with the mentee while engaging authentically. The second phase is called “Collaboration”. During this phase, the mentor works with the mentee to identify the students’ concerns and goals they wish to pursue during the academic year. In the third phase, “Reflection”, the mentor demonstrates understanding by asking engaging questions, challenging limiting perceptions of skills and abilities by capitalizing on previous successes and conveys to the mentee that they are capable of being successful. The final phase is the “Action” phase. In this last phase, the mentor supports the mentee to identify action steps to pursue before their next meeting. Additionally, they identify potential roadblocks and ways to overcome them and offer accountability. The action steps should aid accomplishment of the mentee's goal(s), be mentee generated, and the outcome of the action step should be measurable. At the subsequent meeting, the mentor will explore the outcome of action steps. If the action steps were not completed or the outcome was less than satisfactory, the mentor and mentee will explore next steps and make changes accordingly.

The majority of the mentees volunteer for mentoring while a minority are referred by faculty or other offices on campus (see Simmons & Shea Smith (2020) for additional information about the history and implementation of Success Central). The intervention has demonstrated positive results with first-year students (Simmons et al., 2019), first-generation students (Simmons & Castillo, 2018), and students of color (Simmons & Shea Smith, 2020).

Study Aim

This paper presents data comparing outcomes of residential and commuter students who receive Success Central peer-mentoring to those who did not receive peer mentoring from Success Central. Prior reports have demonstrated that Success Central supports the persistence of different kinds of students.

However, the analysis presented is the first time that a matched comparison group has been used to assess student outcomes. The analysis in this paper is also the first time that there has been an attempt to assess outcomes of commuter versus residential students involved in Success Central. The primary desired outcome of this paper was that Success Central residential and commuter students would have higher rates of persistence than residential and commuter students who did not participate in Success Central. A secondary desired outcome was that Success Central residential and commuter students would experience greater academic success, measured through GPA, credit load attempted, and credits completed. This outcome is secondary because the primary focus of Success Central is persistence. However, peer mentors are known to support mentees to strengthen their academic skills, so this paper presents data on grade point average and academic credits completed versus attempted for Success Central participants and the matched comparison group. The paper will then present case examples of actual residential and commuter students served by Success Central in order to illustrate the model. This study was approved by the institution's Institutional Review Board.

Methodology

Measures

A dataset of student information was provided by the Institution's Office of Institutional Research and Assessment (OIRA). Students that matched Success Central participants on multiple demographic variables but did not participate in Success Central were randomly-selected for the comparison group. The total sample size of students completing Success Central and the matched comparison group was 455 students. The information collected included demographic information, Success Central participation, academic success variables (GPA, credit load attempted and credits completed) and persistence information. Persistence, as used in this paper, is a measure of the degree to which students remain enrolled in college at the same university. Persistence will be measured as both fall-to-spring (one semester persistence) and fall-to-fall (one year) persistence.

Using SPSS 26 software, Chi Square tests were used to detect whether residential and commuter students involved in Success Central had different rates of persistence than the comparison group of students who were not involved in Success Central. Additionally, logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess significant predictors of persistence. Regression analyses also assessed whether housing status interacted with participation in Success Central on both fall-to-spring and fall-to-fall persistence.

Independent samples t-tests were conducted to assess any significant differences in academic success (credits attempted, credits completed and GPA). The first set of independent-sample t-tests examined the differences between Success Central and non-Success Central commuter students. The second set examined the differences between Success Central and non-Success Central residential students.

Sample

The sample was derived from student cohorts starting between Fall 2017 and Fall 2019. This time period was chosen because Success Central began to serve primarily first-year students in Fall 2017. A total of 455 students were included in this study. Of the 455 students, 153 were Success Central Students (33.6%) and 302 students were in the matched comparison group (66.4%). The matched comparison group was very similar to the Success Central group (see Table 1). A majority of participants were female with a total of 273 (60%) and 185 males (40%). A variety of race/ethnicities were included, consisting of 184 White (40.4%), 100 African American (21.9%), 132 Hispanic/Latino (29%), 15 Asian (3.3%) and 12 Multiracial (2.6%). One hundred seventy-four students (38.2%) were first-generation students based on FAFSA data. The sample consisted of 224 (49.2%) commuter students, and 231 (50.8%) residential students (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Success Central and Matched Comparison Group Demographics.

Group	Success Central	Matched Comparison	Total
Total	153	302	455
Male	84 (32.8%)	101 (33.4%)	185
Female	72 (67.2%)	201 (66.6%)	273
White	59 (38.6)	125 (41.4%)	184
African American	34 (22.2%)	66 (21.9%)	100
Hispanic/Latino	42 (27.5%)	90 (29.8%)	132
Asian	5 (3.3%)	10 (3.3%)	15
Unknown	8 (5.2%)	4 (1.3%)	12
Multiracial	5 (3.3%)	7 (2.3%)	12
PELL	83 (54.4%)	158 (52.3%)	241
Off-Campus	76 (49.7%)	148 (49%)	224
On-Campus	77 (50.3%)	154 (51%)	231
First-Gen	57 (37.3%)	117 (38.7%)	174

Results

Chi-Square Analyses of Fall to Spring Persistence (one Semester)

Entire Sample

There was no significant difference in the fall to spring persistence of all resident and commuter students in the sample. Commuters demonstrated an 89% rate and 93% of residents persisted to the following spring semester.

Commuter Students

The Chi-Square analyses revealed significant differences in persistence from fall to spring between commuter students who participate in the Success Central Peer Mentoring program and the matched group of commuter students who did not participate, as shown in Table 2 (p = .045). Of the 148 who did not participate in Success Central, 21 did not persist to the following spring semester, representing an 86% fall to spring persistence rate. However, for Success Central commuters, there was over a 94% persistence rate, meaning Success Central commuter students persisted at a significantly higher rate than those students who did not participate in the mentoring initiative.

Table 2.

Fall to Spring Persistence of Commuter Students.

Group	Did not persist	Persisted	Total
Not Success Central	21	127	148
Success Central	4	72	76
Total	25	199	224

Chi-square = 4.035^a, df =1 p = .045

Residential Students

There was no significant difference in fall to spring persistence between Success Central residential students and the matched comparison group as determined by a chi-square analysis. The Success Central students demonstrated a 97% rate of persistence, while the comparison group demonstrated a 91% rate of persistence (p < .067).

Chi Square Analysis of Fall to Fall Persistence (one Year)

Entire Sample

There was no significant difference in persistence of all students to the following fall semester based on student housing status. Commuters demonstrated a 79% persistence rate and residents had an 81% rate of persistence.

Commuter Students

There was no significant difference in fall-to-fall persistence between Success Central commuter students and the match comparison group as determined by a Chi-Square analysis. Success Central commuters demonstrated an 86% persistence rate, while 75% of the comparison group persisted (p < .069).

Residential Students

There was a significant difference in fall-to-fall persistence of Success Central versus non-Success Central residents (p = .044). Specifically, of the 154 non-Success Central students evaluated, thirty-five did not persist, representing a 77% persistence rate to the following fall semester. However, 68 of the 77 Success Central students persisted, a persistence rate of over 88%. Therefore more Success Central resident students persisted compared to the matched comparison group, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3.

Fall to Fall Persistence of Resident Students.

Group	Did not Persist	Persisted	Total
Not Success Central	35	119	154
Success Central	9	68	77
Total	44	187	231

Chi-square = 4.057^a, df =1 p = .044

Binary Logistic Regressions

Binary logistic regressions were conducted using SPSS software to determine significant predictors of student persistence. Two regression analyses were conducted, the first evaluating fall-to-spring persistence, also referred to as one semester persistence. A second regression evaluated fall-to-fall persistence, or one year persistence. In both models, the only variable exhibiting a significant main effect on student persistence was participation in Success Central (one-semester retention Wald = 5.780, p = .016; one-year retention Wald = 5.772, p = .016). Housing status, demographics, and student variables historically linked to student college success such as first-generation status and Pell Grant eligibility were not found to significantly predict student persistence to the next semester or the next academic year. Housing status did not interact with Success Central participation. Hosmer-Lemeshow tests revealed a good fit between the regression models and the data (see Tables 4 and 5).

Table 4.

Regression Analysis of Participation in Success Central, Housing and Demographic Variables to Predict Fall-to-Spring Persistence (One Semester Persistence).

Variable	β	Wald	Exp (B)	Nagelkerke R-Square
Step 1				.02
Gender	−.377	.970	.686
Pell	.134	.127	1.143
First-Gen	.645	2.785	1.905
Ethnicity	.008	.000	1.008

Step 2				.07
Housing	.563	2.569	1.757
Success Central	1 . 101*	5.780	3.008

Step 3				.07
Housing x Success Central	.361	.140	1.435

Note. Hosmer-Lemeshow chi square = 7.25, df = 8, p = .50

* p < .05

Table 5.

Regression Analysis of Participation in Success Central, Housing and Demographic Variables to Predict Fall-to-Fall Persistence (One Year Persistence).

Variable	β	Wald	Exp (B)	Nagelkerke R-Square
Step 1				.01
Gender	.170	.440	1.185
Pell	−.109	.166	.897
First-Gen	.094	.139	1.099
Ethnicity	−.367	2.041	.693

Step 2				.03
Housing	.145	.359	1.156
Success Central	* . 668	5.772	1.950

Step 3				.03
Housing x Success Central	.201	.129	1.222

Note: Hosmer-Lemeshow chi-square = 3.61, df = 8, p = .89

* p < .05

Academic Success: Grade Point Average

Grade point average was assessed at the end of the academic year that the student participated in Success Central using an independent samples t-test. Success Central commuter students had significantly higher GPAs than the comparison group of commuter students. Success Central commuters had on average a GPA of 0.32 points higher than commuter students who did not participate in the program (p = .007). More specifically, the mean GPA of those who completed Success Central was approximately 2.99, compared to 2.67 for non-Success Central commuters. The t-test effects were moderate in size (See Table 6).

Table 6.

T-Test Results Comparing Participation in Success Central on Commuter Student GPA.

Participation	M	SD	t(199)	p	Cohen's d
Non-Success Central	2.668	.857	−2.730	.007	0.394
Success Central	2.989	.763

Commuter Student Independent T-Tests

There were no significant differences in the GPAs of Success Central residential students and residential students in the comparison group.

Academic Success: Credit Load Attempted

When looking at the entire sample, regardless of Success Central participation, an independent sample t-test revealed a significant difference in the attempted credit load of all students at this university. Results showed a significantly higher credit load for on-campus students compared to off-campus students. The university's residents were attempting approximately 14.74 credit hours per semester compared to commuter students who average 14.39 credits per semester (p = .012).

An independent samples t-test performed on resident students determined that there was a significant difference in the credit load of Success Central versus the matched Non-Success Central residential students. Specifically, the mean credit load for Success Central residential students was 15.08 credits attempted per semester, whereas Non-Success Central matched residential comparison group averaged 14.58 credits per semester (p = .044) (See Table 7).

Table 7.

T-Test Results Comparing Participation in Success Central on Resident Student Credits Attempted.

Participation	M	SD	t(229)	p	Cohen's d
Non-Success Central	14.581	1.427	−2.601	.007	0.372
Success Central	15.078	1.241

Resident Student Independent T-tests

There was no significant difference in attempted credits between Success Central and Non-Success Central matched commuter students.

Academic Success: Credits Completed

An independent samples t-test comparing all resident and commuter students in the sample found a significant difference in the number of credits completed at the end of the semester, unrelated to participation in the peer mentoring program. On average, resident students at the university complete 0.37 more credit hours per semester than commuter students (p = .019).

There was a significant difference in the number of credits completed per semester between Success Central and Non-Success Central commuter students. Success Central commuter students complete approximately 13.07 credits per semester relative to the matched comparison group that completed 11.76 credits (p = .018) (See Table 8). Therefore, Success Central commuter students are completing on average 1.31 more credit hours per semester than the comparison commuter students who did not participate in the program. There was no significant difference in completed credits between Success Central and non-Success Central matched resident students.

Table 8.

T-Test Results Comparing Participation in Success Central on Commuter Student Credits Completed.

Participation	M	SD	t(215)	p	Cohen's d
Non-Success Central	11.759	4.394	−2.397	.018	0.331
Success Central	13.068	3.473

Discussion

The Success Central Peer Mentoring initiative was originally designed as an intervention to address persistence rates of African American and Latino/a students. Prior investigations have demonstrated the benefits of this program on persistence rates of first-generation and first-year students as well. Since its development, the Success Central program has expanded and is now available to all first and second-year students. Since the program has expanded and serves a wider range of students, understanding the program's impact on other student groups is important.

Prior studies have indicated that there are often significant differences in the academic success and persistence of resident versus commuter students, including at this university. Student engagement is one key factor according to mentor cases and research. One of Success Central's goals is to increase students’ connection to campus and their level of involvement. This engagement and connection are crucial to student success and play a critical role in the likelihood of the student persisting in college, regardless of their housing status.

Persistence

Resident and commuter students benefit from participating in Success Central when compared to a randomly-selected matched group of non-participants according to the chi-square analyses. Commuter students who are mentored through this program have higher levels of fall to spring persistence than the matched comparison group while resident students who participated in Success Central demonstrated higher fall to fall persistence rates than the comparison group.

Given these significant findings, regression analyses were conducted to examine the ability of Success Central to uniquely predict student persistence. The analyses examined how program participation, student demographics, housing status (commuter vs. resident), and the interaction of program participation and housing status predict overall student persistence. The first regression model analyzed fall to spring (one semester) persistence, the second analyzed fall-to-fall (one year) persistence. The first step of each regression analyzed demographic factors as predictors of persistence. These variables included gender, ethnicity, Pell Grant eligibility and first-generation status. While these variables are often associated with student outcomes, none were significant predictors of one semester, or one year persistence. Based on prior investigations, housing status was expected to be a predictor, however it was not significant in either model (López Turley & Wodtke, 2010; Melendez, 2019). Furthermore, there was no interaction between housing and program participation.

While housing status and student demographic variables were not significant, participation in Success Central peer mentoring did significantly predict both fall-to-spring and fall-to-fall persistence of university students. This was the only significant predictor across the models. As the sole significant predictor of one-semester and one-year persistence, these results suggest that participating in Success Central peer mentoring plays an influential role in promoting student persistence. These results affirm the program's role as a focused intervention contributing significantly to institutional strategies for enhancing student persistence, particularly during the pivotal first year. Equally important, the program demonstrated significant positive effects on student academic success. The real-world implication of this finding is Success Central Peer Mentoring offers students support and resources that help students pursue their intended degree. In addition to affecting persistence this program aids academic success.

Academic Success

Commuter students particularly benefited from Success Central. Commuter students who are mentored through this program have significantly higher GPAs. They also have more completed credits per semester than the commuter students who do not participate in this program. Commuters in the comparison group who did not participate in Success Central completed on average 11.76 credits per semester, compared to 13.07 credits completed by Success Central students. This is a notable difference because at this university twelve credits are the minimum required to be a full-time student. Therefore, commuters who are not meeting this limit are only completing a part-time course load. The practical implication of a lower completed credit load per semester is students remain in college longer, incurring the cost of additional years at the university.

Although not as robust, the academic success of residential students is also impacted by Success Central involvement. Success Central resident students have significantly higher credit loads compared to the matched comparison group of resident students. Credit load is directly related to the time it takes an individual to complete their degree. Another important consideration for credit load is the effect of withdrawing from classes, which is an issue many mentors have worked with students to successfully address. Specifically, a higher course load when withdrawing from a class may prevent a reclassification to part-time student status, which can negatively impact satisfactory academic progress and financial aid.

There are a few limitations to consider. While these results are significant at this university, it is important to note that all students evaluated attended one mid-sized regional university. The results may not be generalizable to all types of institutions. Another limitation is that involvement in this mentoring program is voluntary. Students who choose to participate may be more motivated or easier to engage in a mentoring relationship. Although Success Central involvement was a significant predictor of persistence, the overall regression models produced a small R-square. Future studies can examine variables not included in the model that may also predict persistence.

Earlier studies have demonstrated that commuter students and residential students can benefit from student support services designed to strengthen academic and social integration. These studies suggest that effective services need to be flexible, because the needs of many commuter students may be different than the needs of many residential students. Success Central peer mentoring uses college life coaching techniques to identify the needs of students across multiple domains and support the student to develop and pursue goals that address identified needs and therefore exercises maximum flexibility to “meet the students where they are”. The results demonstrate the beneficial outcomes related to student participation in Success Central, for both resident and commuter students. This study further supports the utility of the intervention to support the persistence and success of a wide range of students.

Success Central Case Examples

Session notes completed by mentors were reviewed to identify barriers to college success in Success Central resident and commuter students. These session notes are completed by mentors during or immediately following sessions with their mentees. These notes document what is discussed during a session, focusing on both challenges that arise and action steps to address the challenges. The session notes are the source material for two case examples that illustrate the Success Central model for the reader.

Resident

The following mentee's name has been changed to protect student confidentiality. The remainder of the details in this case, including the mentee's demographics, are authentic and demonstrate the work completed in both academic and non- academic domains utilizing the Success Central model. Alyssa Rodriguez was a 21-year-old second-year Latina female from a single-parent household. Alyssa's major is Criminology with a minor in Psychology, and she maintained a full-time security job at a local event venue with overnight shifts. She joined Success Central seeking to improve her self-confidence, time management, and a balance between personal and school life.

In the Connection phase, the mentor found several similarities with Alyssa, as they shared the same major and minor, and interests. The mentor expressed the struggles she faced earlier in her school career and welcomed any questions Alyssa may have had. Unfortunately, Alyssa had a difficult workload, so she was unable to meet consistently in person, but the mentor allowed availability via phone and email outside of sessions.

In the Collaboration phase, the mentor's goal was to help build self-confidence with Alyssa by exploring Alyssa's strengths and motivation to obtain a college degree. During the first session, Alyssa shared that she was struggling in one of her major classes, and this was her third time retaking it and the mentor discovered that they were in the same class. The mentor asked open-ended questions to clarify Alyssa's goals (e.g., How can I help you reach your goal? Where do you feel that you are struggling the most? How can we make the most of these meetings?). This strengthened the relationship between the mentor and mentee and helped her to finish the semester.

In the Reflection phase, the focus was to build self-confidence and motivation within Alyssa to pass this class. Alyssa shared that she will be taking advantage of the professors’ help a lot more than she had in the past. She also started using a planner to help manage her time. The mentor helped Alyssa weekly to stay on top of her assignments, and shared study skills to help study for exams. The mentor also helped Alyssa with any other questions she may have about the class work and offered to study together as well as suggested she link with the academic supports available on campus. During this phase, Alyssa was able to gain the self-confidence she needed and completed all her work while maintaining an overnight job.

In the Action phase, the mentor assisted Alyssa by establishing weekly action steps to help her reach her intended goals. The mentor encouraged Alyssa to focus on one week at a time to keep the work manageable. The mentor also reminded Alyssa that if she needed any help on assignments to reach out to her or the professor.

As a result of utilizing the Success Central coaching techniques, there was a connection built between the mentor and Alyssa, and the mentor helped with the development of time management skills, self-confidence, and motivation. Alyssa's accomplishments included earning passing grades in general and, most importantly, passing the class on her third and final attempt. She ended her time with Success Central looking forward to her future classes and confident that she would do well in them.

Commuter

Jane Doe is an 18-year-old Pacific Islander Female who is majoring in pre-nursing. Jane is a rising sophomore commuter student and partakes in the dance team. She most looked forward to meeting new friends and having new experiences when entering college. She joined peer mentoring to help acclimate to college life and aid her time management skills. Jane has been working with the same mentor for a year now and through their weekly collaborative meetings has developed the tools vital to the success of her academic and nonacademic needs.

In the Connection phase, the mentor's goal was to obtain as much background information on the mentee as possible through exploration into high school involvement, relaxation techniques, interests/hobbies, studying skills, and overall strengths and weaknesses in academic life. The mentor's rapport with Jane became very strong as weeks passed by as there were productive discussions into all aspects of college life, including that the mentor was a nursing student herself and shared a common interest in dance/the arts. The mentee felt comfortable sharing information with the mentor as evidenced by the 20 + in person meetings they shared and Jane's level of engagement. The mentor was available via phone and in-person scheduling, which were both utilized.

The collaboration phase focused on exploring ways Jane could accomplish her aspiration of getting into the Nursing program. The first few sessions went well. However, towards the end of her first semester Jane started expressing doubts about her major choice that seemed very out of character with her prior sessions. Due to the rapport developed between the two, the mentor was able to approach Jane and discuss why she was suddenly considering this major change. The mentor asked Jane open-ended questions as well as used a grading scale (from 1–10) to assess how Jane was managing her current academic classes. This discussion allowed the two to work together as a unit to identify barriers to her success in getting into the Nursing program as well as find ways to use these barriers as a motivator and not a deterrent to her goal of being a nurse.

Combining the Reflection and Action phases, the goal was to encourage Jane to identify what was suddenly lowering her confidence and from that identification, use her arsenal of skills to remedy the situation. Jane shared that she was nervous about qualifying for application to the nursing program because she wanted to participate in a dance team competition that would interfere with a nursing prerequisite class. She identified feelings of anxiety because she desperately wanted to be in nursing, however, she also wanted to build stronger connections with her resident student friends as she did not get to see them much due to her need to commute back and forth to school every day. From this reflection, the mentor and Jane decided the best course of action would be to determine what the best choice would be for her long-term goals for her life outside of college. Jane decided that she would be comfortable delaying her nursing application for an academic year so she could make lifelong friends and memories from the dance team trip. To come to this decision, Jane employed deep breathing exercises that were taught by her mentor to relax her mind. The mentor also helped Jane sort out the pros and cons of both options so she could make an educated decision not based solely on emotions. Jane valued the opinion of her mentor because of her current major status and the one-on-one meetings coupled with the techniques above, which made her feel as though she was not alone and had support throughout this stressful process. Through these steps, Jane was able to reinforce a sense of control over her long-term goals.

Since the mentor employed the use of the mentor coaching techniques, a bond formed between the two parties that assisted Jane in overcoming barriers to her pursuit of a nursing degree. Jane was able to restore confidence in herself and abilities which led her to make a decision that addressed her social and academic goals. This case example highlights a commuter student's ability to overcome an obstacle by working one-on-one with a mentor.

Footnotes

Author Note

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript. No funding was received to support preparation of the manuscript or the conduct of the study. The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

The authors appreciate the support of Yvonne Kirby, Associate Vice-President for Planning & Institutional Effectiveness at Central Connecticut State University, Carmen Veloria, Associate Vice-President of Academic Affairs, Kimberly Kostelis, Provost and Vice-President of Academic Affairs, Damon Mitchell, Professor, Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice, and Zulma Toro, President of Central Connecticut State University.

ORCID iD

Reginald Simmons

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Statement of Declarations

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Author biographies

Victoria Wallington, BA, MA, is the Coordinator of Success Central Peer Mentoring at Central Connecticut State University (CCSU). Her first involvement with Success Central was as a mentee during her sophomore year. She has helped operate Success Central since that time while earning a BA in Psychological Science and an MA in Psychology with a specialization in Health Psychology from CCSU.

Reginald Simmons, MA, PhD, is a Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at CCSU and founder of Success Central, which he directed for ten years. He earned a BA in Psychology from Prairie View A&M University, an MA in Community-Agency Counseling from Michigan State University, a PhD in Clinical and Community Psychology from the University of South Carolina, and pre- and post-doctoral fellowships in the Psychology Section of the Yale University Department of Psychiatry.

Emily Cardinale, BSN, is an alum of CCSU, graduating summa cum laude with a Bachelor of Science in Nursing in 2023. She spent part of her undergraduate career as a peer mentor and senior peer mentor for Success Central.

Valentina Hernandez earned her BA in Criminology & Criminal Justice and her MS in Criminal Justice from CCSU. She was involved with Success Central for multiple years serving as a peer mentor, senior peer mentor, and Graduate Assistant.

References

Anft

(2018, July 1). Student needs have changed. Advising must change, too. Chronicle of Higher Education, 64(37), 24.

Astin

A. W.

(1993). Diversity and multiculturalism on the campus: How are students affected? Change, 25(2), 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.1993.9940617

Bettinger

E. P.

Baker

R. B.

(2013). The effects of student coaching: An evaluation of a randomized experiment in student advising. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373713500523

Bozick

(2007). Making it through the first year of college: The role of students’ economic resources, employment, and living arrangements. Sociology of Education, 80(3), 261–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/003804070708000304

Coleman Tucker

(2014, March 8). First generation. Chronicle of Higher Education, 60, 24–28.

Dennis

J. M.

Phinney

J. S.

Chuateco

L. I.

(2005). The role of motivation, parental support, and peer support in the academic success of ethnic minority first-generation college students. Journal of College Student Development, 46(3), 223–236. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2005.0023

López Turley

R. N.

Wodtke

(2010). College residence and academic performance: Who benefits from living on campus? Urban Education, 45(4), 506–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085910372351

J. R.

Pender

Welch

(2019). Education pays 2019: The benefits of higher education for individuals and society. College Board.

Melendez

M. C.

(2019). The influence of residential status on the adjustment to college at four urban universities. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 20(4), 437–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025116678853

10.

Mitchell

B. O.

(2013). Relationship of peer mentoring to academic success and social engagement for first year college students [Doctoral dissertation]. North Carolina Agricultural and Technical University.

11.

National Student Clearinghouse Research Center . (2021). Snapshot report: Persistence and retention. Retrieved from https://nscresearchcenter.org/persistence-retention/.

12.

Schwartz

S. E.

Kanchewa

S. S.

Rhodes

J. E.

Gowdy

Stark

A. M.

Horn

J. P.

Spencer

(2018). I’m having a little struggle with this, can you help me out?”: Examining impacts and processes of a social capital intervention for first-generation college students. American Journal of Community Psychology, 61(1–2), 166–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12206

13.

Secreti

(2018). Extension of a commuter advisor and engagement program. Higher Education Student Work, 27, 1–58.

14.

Servies

C. M.

(1999). Mentoring and retention at a commuter campus (Order No. 3017681). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (276354310). Retrieved from https://ccsu.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/mentoring-retention-at-commuter-campus/docview/276354310/se-2?accountid=9970.

15.

Simmons

Castillo

(2018). Peer coaching: A model for supporting the persistence of first- generation college students. In Whalen

(Ed.), Proceedings of the 14^th national symposium on student retention (pp. 296–305). The University of Oklahoma.

16.

Simmons

Castillo

Wallington

Pasion

(2019). Success central: Using peer coaching to support the persistence of first-year college students. In Whalen

(Ed.), Proceedings of the 15^th national symposium on student retention (pp. 389–398). The University of Oklahoma.

17.

Simmons

Shea Smith

(2020). Success central: Addressing the persistence of African-American and latinx college students using a peer success coaching intervention. Innovative Higher Education, 45(5), 419–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-020-09516-8

18.

Simpson

D. B.

Burnett

(2017). Commuters versus residents: The effects of living arrangement and student engagement on academic performance. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 21(3), 286–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025117707516

19.

Switzer

(1988, November). Commuter and residential campuses: Academic and co-curricular implications for speech communication faculty. Paper presented at Speech Communication Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 301-892).

20.

Tinto

(1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125 https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543045001089