Journal of Student Affairs in Africa | Volume 8(1) 2020, 1‑12 | 2307-6267 | DOI: 10.24085/jsaa.v8i1.

3824 1

Research article
A Comparative Study of the Academic Performance of
Resident and Non‑resident Students at a Rural South
African University
Tshimangadzo Daniel Sikhwari,* Nkhangweleni Gloria Dama,**
Azwitamisi Milton Gadisi*** & Tshifhiwa Christinah Matodzi****

Abstract
Lack of sufficient accommodation in many South African universities has forced many students to
reside outside the campus and commute to attend classes as commuter students. Research indicates that
living on campus is related to gains in social and personal competence. The level of competence gained
may help students living on campus (resident students) to be more successful in their courses. The
purpose of this study was to compare the academic performance of resident and non‑resident students
at a university in Limpopo Province. The study employed a survey design. Systematic sampling and
snowball sampling methods were used to select 1 769 participants from both resident and non‑resident
students. A questionnaire was used to collect data.The main finding from this study is that the academic
performance of resident students is slightly better than that of non‑resident students – hence, residing
on campus is an advantage. The study concludes that campus environment, student involvement as
well as student academic and social integration into the institution tend to account for effects of living
on‑campus versus living off‑campus. Furthermore, academic and social integration of students at
university are essential for study commitment, success and preventing students from dropping out. The
study recommends that future research should focus on the direct influence of resident versus commuter
status on such outcomes as degree aspiration, satisfaction with university and institutional persistence.

Keywords
accommodation; commitment; commuter; integration; involvement; learning environment; perception;
persistence; resident students; university

Introduction
The dawn of democracy in 1994 saw an increase in demand for access to higher
education in South Africa. Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) had to provide sufficient
accommodation as more students were studying away from home. However, most

* Dr Tshimangadzo Daniel Sikhwari is an External Supervisor of Postgraduate Research Studies at the
Department of Psychology of Education, University of South Africa. Email: [email protected]
** Dr Nkhangweleni Gloria Dama is a Student Counsellor at the Student Counselling and Career
Development Unit, University of   Venda. Email: [email protected]
*** Mr Azwitamisi Milton Gadisi is a Library Liaison Officer at the Disability Unit, University of   Venda.
Email: [email protected]
**** Mrs Tshifhiwa Christinah Matodzi is a Student Counsellor at the Disability Unit, University of   Venda.
Email: [email protected]

www.jsaa.ac.za
2 Journal of Student Affairs in Africa | Volume 8(1) 2020, 1‑12 | 2307-6267 | DOI: 10.24085/jsaa.v8i1.3824

universities could not cater for the increased numbers of students seeking university
accommodation. The increased demand for quality accommodation in the South African
higher education sector has been a serious matter of contention amongst students and
student bodies (Gopal & Van Niekerk, 2018). Jansen and Dube (2013) report that between
2009 and 2013, the South African higher education sector experienced 39 student protests
over student housing. As a direct consequence of these protests, the Minister of Higher
Education, Dr Blade Nzimande, set up a task team in 2011 to investigate the national
student housing crisis. The objective of the task team was to investigate the magnitude of
student accommodation challenges and to offer a well-motivated solution for redressing
the accommodation problem in South African universities. The task team found that
the severe shortage of accommodation is causing the vast majority of students to seek
off‑campus accommodation which is often in unsafe areas and in unacceptable conditions
(DHET, 2011).
The provision of accessible, decent and safe accommodation in South African
universities is of importance for academic success of students, especially those from rural
and poor backgrounds. Many students, particularly those studying in historically Black
institutions, have been experiencing a shortage of accommodation on university campuses.
As a result, students are forced to stay in accommodation outside the university, while
others are housed inside the campus, although both resident and non‑resident students are
expected to complete their studies in record time. Amole (1997) defines resident students as
those residing in the university residences during their studies and day students as students
who reside outside the university campus; non‑resident students include those residing
in their own homes or in hired accommodation outside the university. It was indicated
that resident students have more benefits, like access to ancillary buildings, sports facilities,
religious activities and clubs, than day students. According to Timmons (2014), resident
students enjoy such benefits as being able to to attend classes punctually and access to the
library for longer periods, whereas non‑resident students residing far from their campus,
encounter difficulties in these aspects. Non‑resident students, therefore, spend extensive
time travelling before they arrive at the university.
Many educators believe that there should be close proximity between the living and
learning environments in order to produce intellectuals who are socially integrated and
mentally sound (Oluwaseyi, 2015). According to O’Toole, Peterson and Wetzel (1999),
living off‑campus diverts the students’ time and attention towards other obligations which
may deprive them of the opportunity to “develop a sense of place”. Lutta (2008) assessed
a number of factors related to the retention of students at a university in southern U.S.A.
He found that over 75% of the students who did not return to the university for their
third year lived off‑campus, that is, they were commuter students. Newbold, Melita and
Forbus (2011) conducted an analysis of commuter versus residential students’ performance
which indicated that there were several key differences between the two groups. Their
results indicated that commuter students live more of their lives in the off‑campus setting,
and thus their support resources are likely to be off‑campus as well. Students living on
campus have greater access to resources, like counsellors, advisers and fellow students when
 T.D. Sikhwari, N.G. Dama, A.M. Gadisi & T.C. Matodzi: A Comparative Study of the Academic Performance … 3

faced with any problem they may have. Astin (1985) found that, as compared to commuters,
resident students had more interaction with faculty and peers, had more opportunities
of involvement in extracurricular activities, were more satisfied with college, had higher
degree aspirations, were less likely to drop out and were more likely to obtain a bachelor’s
degree after four years of college. Pascarella (1984) assessed the effects of residential living
on four outcomes measures: educational aspirations, satisfaction with college, rate of
progress through college, and intentions to persist after two years. Pascarella also found
that living on campus versus commuting had no significant direct effect on any of the
four measures. The influence of residence was nevertheless indirect and influenced by
levels of involvement with faculty and peers (Pascarella, 1984). Similarly, Abrahamowicz
(1988) examined the effects of involvement in college activities at a commuter institution.
He found large differences in perceptions of, and satisfaction with, the college experience
between students who participated in student organisations and those who did not. He
concluded that many of the potentially negative effects of commuting could be alleviated
by encouraging participation in student activities (Abrahamowicz, 1988).
A study conducted by Kuh, Gonyea and Palmer (2001) indicated that living on campus
was related to gains in social and personal competencies. The level of competence gained
may help resident students to be more successful in their courses. By contrast, commuter
students were found to have slightly lower levels of interaction with faculty members and
were less likely to be involved in co‑curricular activities, such as clubs and internships (Kuh,
Gonyea & Palmer, 2001). When commuter students compare themselves to their peers
on campus, they might feel that they are at a disadvantage in terms of skills development.
They may also feel that they are not involved in the essential activities of the university
(Nelson, Nisra, Sype & Mackie, 2016). This may discourage these non‑resident students
and influence their commitment to continuing with their studies. Norris, Philhours and
Hudson (2006) conducted an analysis of business students’ study habits. They divided
the research subjects into two groups: campus-centred students (CCS) and life-centred
students (LCS). Campus-centred students lived on‑campus while life-centred students lived
off‑campus. Their results indicated that campus-centred students had slightly higher grade-
point averages (GPAs) and higher self-reported levels of academic performance.
Wilmes and Quade (cited in Jacoby, 1989) identified the following needs and concerns
of commuter students:
• Transportation issues: The most common concerns shared by commuter students
are those related to transportation to campus, such as fixed transportation
schedules, transportation costs and finding alternative means of transportation. In
general, commuting is demanding in terms of time and energy.
• Integrating support systems: Commuter students derive their support off‑campus
from parents, siblings and friends in the community. Students have to negotiate
with family members and friends to establish priorities and responsibilities and
to allocate time. These negotiations are more difficult if significant others have
no knowledge of the challenges and opportunities of higher education. In our
African culture, for example, female students may be expected to do household
4 Journal of Student Affairs in Africa | Volume 8(1) 2020, 1‑12 | 2307-6267 | DOI: 10.24085/jsaa.v8i1.3824

chores after classes. It is important for institutions to provide opportunities for

these students to learn about and to participate appropriately in campus life.
• Developing a sense of belonging: Commuter students often lack a sense of
belonging, of “feeling wanted” by the institution. In most cases, institutions do not
provide adequate opportunities for commuter students to develop relationships
with faculty, staff and other students. As a result, students do not feel connected to
a place where they have no significant relationships.
• Multiple life roles: Being a student is only one of several important and demanding
roles in life. Commuter students include full-time students who live at home
with their parents as well as fully employed adults who live with their spouses
and children and attend classes as part‑time students. So, some commuter students
work and many have responsibilities for managing households and for caring for
children, siblings or older relatives. It is therefore important that any information
about campus activities is made available to them in a timely manner so that they
can decide if they need to participate.
The purpose of this study was to compare the academic performance of resident and
non‑resident students at a university in Limpopo Province. The authors deemed it fit to
do this research in a predominantly residential institution to find out if commuting to
university affects commuter students’ academic performance.

Theoretical Frameworks
The ecosystem model
According to Jacoby (1989), the ecosystem model indicates that unsatisfactory educational
outcomes may be the result of a deficit in the environment rather than in the student. The
ecosystems model is based on the beliefs that every student possesses the potential for a
variety of behaviours and that a given campus environment may encourage or inhibit one
or more of these behaviours. Jacoby (1989) further posits that the wide range of individual
differences amongst students requires the creation of a variety of campus sub‑environments.
Banning and Hughes (1986) are of the opinion that successful campus design according
to the ecosystems model must consider the diversity of students, and depends upon
participation of all campus members, including students, faculty and staff. The ecosystem
design process demands institutional change to improve the working relationship between
commuter students and the campus. For example, the institution can adjust its patterns of
scheduling courses and hours of operation in order to enable commuter students to attend
classes or to use services without hassles (Banning & Hughes, 1986).

Involvement, talent development and integration

Jacoby (1989) declares that “the more time and efforts students invest in their learning
process and the more intensely they engage in their own education, the greater will be their
growth, achievement and satisfaction with the college experience and their persistence
 T.D. Sikhwari, N.G. Dama, A.M. Gadisi & T.C. Matodzi: A Comparative Study of the Academic Performance … 5

toward attainment of their educational goals”. The concept of students’ involvement,

incorporated into a talent-development view of higher education, holds that a high-
quality institution is one that facilitates maximum growth amongst its students and that
records that growth through appropriate assessment procedures (Astin, 1985). Learning
and personal growth occur best in institutional environments where students’ talents can
be identified and developed. Tinto (1987) points out that a model for understanding the
process of student withdrawal is based on the degree of social and intellectual integration
within the institution. This model postulates that a student’s background characteristics at
the time of entry influence initial commitments to the institution and to graduation. This
combination of background characteristics and initial commitments in turn influences the
student’s academic and social integration into the institution. Students decide to leave when
they are not adequately integrated into the academic and social areas of the institution,
and their background characteristics influence the decision to withdraw only indirectly
(Tinto, 1987).

Transition theory
According to Jacoby (1989), a transition can be an event, such as when a first-entering
student enrols in a local university while living at home. Jacoby further states that transitions
change the ways individuals view themselves and alter their roles, routines and relationships
within the family, the community and the institution of higher education. A transition is
therefore not so much a matter of change as it is the individual’s perception of the change
(Jacoby, 1989). It is important that university staff be aware of the fact that some of their
students, especially first years, are in a transition period and they should be prepared to assist
them in adjusting to their new roles, challenges and relationships.

Methodology
Research approach and design
The present study was based on the positivist paradigm. Positivism is an approach to social
research that seeks to apply the natural science model of research to investigations of social
phenomena and explanations of the social world (De Vos et al., 2011). According to Babbie
and Mouton (2001), positivists believe that an objective reality exists outside of personal
experience that has demonstrable and immutable laws and mechanisms that can reveal
cause-and-effect relationships. Positivism maintains that it is possible and essential for the
researcher to adopt a distant, detached, neutral and non‑interactive position (Morris, 2006).
The researchers adopted a quantitative approach for this study. Quantitative research is a
type of research that explains phenomena by collecting numerical data that are analysed
using mathematically based methods (Creswell, 2012). The analyses consist of breaking
down the data into parts to answer the research questions. Quantitative research operates
with less detail than qualitative methods, but with a wider scope and more generalised level
of explanation (Payne & Payne, 2004). The study employed a survey design. According
to Creswell (2012), a survey design is a procedure in quantitative research in which the
6 Journal of Student Affairs in Africa | Volume 8(1) 2020, 1‑12 | 2307-6267 | DOI: 10.24085/jsaa.v8i1.3824

researcher administers a survey or questionnaire to a group of people to identify trends in

attitudes, opinions, behaviours or practices. The design was chosen because it is convenient
for acquiring factual information about a large group of individuals (McMillan &
Schumacher, 2010).

Participants
The study used systematic sampling method to select 924 participants from the population
of all resident students at the university. In addition, the researcher asked selected
participants (resident students) to identify day students who had registered for the same
degree programmes to participate in the study; this procedure is known as snowball
sampling (Creswell, 2012). Eight hundred and forty-five (845) day students were thereby
selected to participate in the study, making a total of 1 769 participants.

Data collection
A questionnaire was used to collect data. The questionnaire had two sections: Section 1
consisted of questions on biographical data of the participants and Section 2 consisted of
closed-ended and open-ended questions on living and study conditions in students’ places
of residence, on‑campus and off‑campus. The questionnaire was given to an experienced
statistician to establish its content and construct validity before it was administered to the
participants. The questionnaires were hand-delivered to all selected participants, with the
help of research assistants. Four male research assistants distributed 1 030 questionnaires
in male on‑campus residences while five female research assistants distributed 1 015
questionnaires in female on‑campus residences; hence, the total number of questionnaires
distributed in both male and female on‑campus residences was 2 045. Questionnaires
amounting to nearly half of this total were distributed to day students by research
assistants. A total of 1 882 completed questionnaires were collected from both resident and
non‑resident students. This amounted to 86% of the questionnaires that were distributed
and was regarded as a good return rate. In order to compare the academic performance
of the participating students, performance records were requested from the Management
Information System (MIS) office at the University.

Data analysis
The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to analyse data. Chi-square tests
of association were used to investigate (i) if there was an association between the responses
to certain questions and the status of the student and (ii) whether, if a student passes all
their courses or not is dependent on the status of the student. A t‑test for independent
samples was used to investigate if, on average, the academic achievement of resident and
non‑resident students was the same.
 T.D. Sikhwari, N.G. Dama, A.M. Gadisi & T.C. Matodzi: A Comparative Study of the Academic Performance … 7

Ethical considerations
Participants were informed about the purpose of the research. Their participation was
voluntary and they were informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time.
Participants’ identities were confidential as they did not use their names. Permission to
conduct the study was sought from the University’s Research Ethics Committee.

Results
The academic performance data of resident and non‑resident students for 2016 were
obtained from the university’s Management Information System (MIS) office. The data sets
contained the number of subjects that each student enrolled for in 2016, the number of
subjects passed, and the average mark across all the subjects.These records were then merged
with data generated from the questionnaire using the SSPS software. The student number
was used as the key variable for matching the records. The table below gives the summary
of the number of courses that the students enrolled for and the number of courses passed.

Table 1: Number of subjects enrolled and passed

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Subjects
439 1 14 9.31 2.682
Non‑resident enrolled
students Subjects
439 1 14 8.29 3.000
Passed
Subjects
556 1 18 9.29 2.918
Resident enrolled
students Subjects
556 0 18 8.44 3.252
Passed

For non‑resident students, the number of courses enrolled in ranged between 1 and 14.
The mean was 9.31 with a standard deviation of 2.682. The number of courses passed had
a similar range with a slightly lower mean of 8.21 and a standard deviation of 3.00. For
resident students, the number of courses enrolled in ranged between 1 and 18. The mean
was 9.29 with a standard deviation of 2.918. The number of courses ranged between zero
and 18 with a slightly lower mean of 8.44 and a standard deviation of 3.252. The table
below gives summary statistics for the average marks.
Table 2: Average marks
Day or Resident Std. Std. Error
N Mean
students Deviation Mean
Day students 439 60.55 7.151 0.341
Average marks
Resident students 556 61.59 7.870 0.334

The mean score for non‑resident students was 60.55 with a standard deviation of 7.151.
For resident students, the mean score was 61.59 with a standard deviation of 7.870.
8 Journal of Student Affairs in Africa | Volume 8(1) 2020, 1‑12 | 2307-6267 | DOI: 10.24085/jsaa.v8i1.3824

Thus, resident students marginally outperformed the day students. A t‑test for independent
samples was used to ascertain if the difference in the average scores is significant. The
key assumption underpinning the need of the t‑test is that the data should be normally
distributed. The histogram below shows that the distribution of the average scores does not
show a serious deviation from the normal distribution, hence we could proceed to use a t‑test.

Mean = 61.14
Std. Dev. = 7.568
N = 999
60
Frequency

40

20

0
30 40 50 60 70 80
Average mark

Figure 1: Histogram of final exam scores

The results of the t‑test show that there is a significant difference in the mean score of day
students and resident students (P‑value = 0.00) and the difference is in favour of resident
students. The lower and upper limits for the 95% confidence interval for estimating
the actual difference in the mean scores for day students and resident students are 1.26
and 3.14. We are therefore 95% confident that in the population of these students, the
average mark scored by a resident student is about 1.26 to 3.14% higher than that of
non‑resident students. The mean difference between the scores is 2.20%. The main finding
from this study is that the academic performance of resident students is slightly better than
that of non‑resident students.

Discussion
A study by Noble, Flynn, Lee and Hilton (2007) found that the college learning climate is
improved by on‑campus living and exposure to other student-enhancement programmes.
Schuch and Upcraft (2001) regard student residences as places where learning can be
extended and practised, as well as assisting the development of interpersonal relations and
leadership skills. The same authors further state that residences hence have an educational
 T.D. Sikhwari, N.G. Dama, A.M. Gadisi & T.C. Matodzi: A Comparative Study of the Academic Performance … 9

influence on student development, both academically and socially. Khurshid, Tanveer and
Qasmi (2012) conducted a study to investigate the relationship between the academic
achievement and study habits of resident students and day students at a university in
Islamabad, Pakistan. Day students obtained higher mean scores on a study skills inventory
as well as on academic achievement than resident students. The study found that resident
students had problems such as living away from home and difficulty in time management
when studying. On the other hand, day students had proper study facilities available at their
homes, and these enabled them to gain full concentration when studying and consequently
they obtained higher academic achievement. Miller and Winston (1991) are of the opinion
that the residential setting may be one of the most powerful forces influencing students’
behaviour and ultimate success during their undergraduate years. Pascarella, Terenzini and
Blimling (in Gopal & Van Niekerk, 2018) assert that residence halls promote a variety of
desirable academic outcomes by enhancing students’ involvement and engagement with
their institutions.
Jones et al. (2008) interviewed students who lived in different university residences in
South Africa. The interviews confirmed that suitable, safe and affordable accommodation
on the university campus was the ideal for students to be able to study effectively and access
the universities’ resources, such as libraries, computer centres and student support services.
However, the students interviewed reported varying experiences of living in residence,
describing both advantages and difficulties. On the one hand, advantages were that
particularly first‑year students found it easier to socialise and adjust to campus life. On the
other hand, common problems reported were high noise levels, which made it difficult to
study at times, rooms that were uncomfortably small for sharing, the high price of residence
meals and a lack of cooking facilities. Some of the students in the sample also reported
that, especially in their first year, they had felt socially alienated by being labelled as poor
by their relatively better-off peers in residence, although this abated in continuing years. In
the Ministerial Committee Report of the Department of Higher Education and Training
(DHET, 2011), most institutions of higher learning indicated that they provide a variety of
academic support programmes in student residences; these programmes include mentoring
and tutoring, peer education, career guidance, and relationship guidance.The DHET report
further indicates that “being housed in a safe, well-managed residence is both socially and
academically beneficial for students, particularly those from poorer backgrounds”. It is,
therefore, important that an institution of higher learning should provide well-maintained
and secure residences, including creating opportunities for learning within the residences.
In terms of theoretical underpinnings, the findings of this study would appear to
support the notion that living on‑campus substantially and positively influences a student’s
degree of interpersonal, social integration with both peers and faculty members during
university or college study (Pascarella, 1984). Pascarella further states that it is the level of
social integration, and not the mere fact of residing on‑campus that directly influences
university outcomes. This finding is consistent with that of Pascarella and Terenzini (1980)
who focused on the developmental influences of different types of on‑campus residence
arrangements. They found that living on‑campus may significantly influence college
10 Journal of Student Affairs in Africa | Volume 8(1) 2020, 1‑12 | 2307-6267 | DOI: 10.24085/jsaa.v8i1.3824

outcomes, but the influence appears to manifest less through direct effects than through
dramatic differences in the extent to which residents and commuters become integrated
into the social system of the institution.
Based on data collected annually from first-entering students, Jacoby (1989) found that
living in a campus residence as a first‑year student was associated with reduced possibilities
for dropping out. Similarly, living at home with parents negatively affected persistence when
compared with living on campus. Amongst the most significant positive effects of living
on campus versus commuting were involvement in extracurricular activities, interaction
with faculty members, achievement in academic studies, leadership development, career
development, social life, and satisfaction with the undergraduate experience (Jacoby, 1989).
Amongst the implications for educational policymakers is the need for institutions to
provide opportunities to increase commuter students’ involvement. Bitzer (2009) points out
that the successful academic and social integration of first‑year students in higher education
settings is important with regard to study commitment, study success and preventing
early dropouts. Tinto (1987) has shown that the level of institutional and programmatic
integration has a major influence on both student commitment and study success. Similarly,
Jarvis, Holford and Griffin (1998) have pointed to the close relationship between student
integration and motivation.

Limitations of the Study

The findings of this study cannot be generalised to other institutions of higher learning as it
was conducted at a rural university with its unique context. If a similar study is conducted
in different universities in South Africa, generalisation from the findings could be more
sensible and reliable. Furthermore, this study covered a period of one year. It would be
more beneficial to investigate students’ academic performance over a longer period.

Conclusion
The results of the study show that a larger percentage of resident students passed all the
courses they enrolled for as compared to non‑resident students. The literature has shown
that non‑resident students are disadvantaged by several factors such as the need to commute
to the university, insufficient time to consult support resources and less interaction with
staff members and fellow students. Campus environment, student involvement as well as
student academic and social integration into the institution tend to mediate, or account
for, the effects of living on‑campus versus living off‑campus on academic performance. In
addition, it has been shown that academic and social integration of students in institutions
of higher learning is essential for students’ commitment, success and preventing early
student departure. Finally, future research might focus on the direct influence of resident
versus commuter status on such outcomes as degree aspiration, satisfaction with university
and institutional persistence.
 T.D. Sikhwari, N.G. Dama, A.M. Gadisi & T.C. Matodzi: A Comparative Study of the Academic Performance … 11

References
Abrahamowicz, D. (1988). College involvement, perceptions, and satisfaction: A study of membership in
student organizations. Journal of College Student Development, 29, 233‑238.
Amole, O.O. (1997). An evaluation of students’ residential facilities in some Nigerian universities. Abafemi,
Awelono: Department of Architecture.
Astin, A.W. (1985). Achieving educational excellence. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Babbie, E. & Mouton, J. (2001). The practice of social research. Cape Town, South Africa: Oxford University
Press.
Banning, J.H. & Hughes, B.M. (1986). Designing the campus environment with commuter students.
NASPA Journal, 24, 17‑24.
Bitzer, E. (2009). Academic and social integration in three first‑year groups: A holistic perspective. South
African Journal of Higher Education, 23(2), 225‑245.
Creswell, J.W. (2012). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
De Vos, A.S., Strydom, H., Fouche, C.B. & Delport, C.S.L. (2011). Research at grass roots: for the social sciences
and human service professions. Pretoria, South Africa: Van Schaik Publishers.
DHET (Department of Higher Education and Training) (2011). Report on the Ministerial Committee for
the review of the provision of student housing at South African universities. Pretoria, South Africa:
DHET.
Gopal, N. & Van Niekerk, C. (2018). Safety in student residences matters! South African Journal of Higher
Education, 32(3), 172‑188. https://doi.org/10.20853/32-3-2524
Jacoby, B. (1989). The student as commuter: Developing a comprehensive institutional response. ASHE – ERIC
Higher Education Report No. 7.Washington, DC: School of Education and Human Development,
The George Washington University.
Jansen, L. & Dube, A. (2013). “R1 bn for KZN student housing”. The Mercury, 13 February.
Jarvis, P.J., Holford, J. & Griffin, C. (1998). The theory and practice of learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Jones, B., Coetzee, G., Bailey, T. & Wickham, S. (2008). Factors that facilitate success for disadvantaged
higher education students. An investigation into approaches used by the Rural Education Access
Programme (REAP), NSFAS and selected higher education institutions. Athlone, Western Cape
Province, South Africa. https://bit.ly/3dn2mCG
Khurshid, F., Tanveer, A. & Qasmi, F.N. (2012). Relationship between study habits and academic
achievement among hostel living and day scholars’ university students. British Journal of Humanities
and Social Sciences, 3(2), 34‑42.
Kuh, G.D., Gonyea, R.M. & Palmer, M. (2001). The disengaged commuter student: Fact or Fiction?
Commuter Perspectives, 27(1), 2‑5. http://www.nsse.indiana.edu/pdf/commuter.pdf
Lutta, J.M. (2008). Factors that influence traditional-age college students to re‑enroll in their third year at a
research extensive university in the southern region of the United States. PhD dissertation, Louisiana
State University. https://bit.ly/2V46t0f
McMillan, J.H. & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry. Boston, MA: Pearson
Education.
Miller, T.K. & Winston, R.B. (1991). Administration and leadership in student affairs: Actualising student
development in higher education. Muncie, IN: Accelerated Development.
Morris,T. (2006). Social work research methods: four alternative paradigms. London: Sage.
12 Journal of Student Affairs in Africa | Volume 8(1) 2020, 1‑12 | 2307-6267 | DOI: 10.24085/jsaa.v8i1.3824

Nelson, D., Misra, K., Sype, G.E. & Mackie, W. (2016). An analysis of the relationship between distance
from campus and GPA of commuter students. Journal of International Education Research, 12(1), 37‑46.
https://doi.org/10.19030/jier.v12i1.9565
Newbold, J.J., Metta, S.S. & Forbus, P. (2011). Commuter students: Involvement and identification with and
institution of higher education. Educational Leadership Journal, 15(2), 141‑153.
Noble, K., Flynn, N.T., Lee, J.D. & Hilton, D. (2007). Predicting successful college experiences: Evidence
from a first year retention program. Journal of College Student Retention, 9(1), 39‑60. https://doi.org/
10.2190/6841-42JX-X170-8177
Norris, S.A., Philhours, M.J. & Hudson, G.I. (2011).Where does the time go? A diary approach to business
and marketing students’ time use. Journal of Marketing Education, 28(2), 121‑134. https://doi.org/10.1
177/0273475306288400
O’Toole, D., Peterson, S. & Wetzel, J.N. (1999). Factors affecting student retention probabilities: A case
study. Journal of Economics and Finance, 23(1), 45‑55. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02752686
Owolabi, B.O. (2015). The effects of students’ housing on academic performance at the University of
Ibadan in Nigeria. International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research, 6(3), 1118‑1132.
Pascarella, E. (1984). Reassessing the effects of living on campus versus commuting to college: A causal
modelling approach. Review of Higher Education, 247‑260. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.1984.0016
Pascarella, E. & Terenzini, P. (1980). Student‑faculty and student‑peer relationships as mediators of the
structural effects of undergraduate residence arrangement. Journal of Educational Research, 73, 344‑353.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1980.10885264
Payne, G. & Payne, J. (2004). Key concepts in social research. London: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781
849209397
Schuch, J.H. & Upcraft, M.L. (2001). Assessment practice in student affairs:An applications manual. San Francisco,
CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Timmons, L.C. (2014). The uncritical commuter: The impact of students’ living situations while at university.
Glasgow, Scotland: University of Glasgow (School of Psychology).
Tinto,V. (1987). Leaving college. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

How to cite:
Sikhwari, T.D., Dama, N.G., Gadisi, A.M. & Matodzi, T.C. 2020. A Comparative Study of the
Academic Performance of Resident and Non‑resident Students at a Rural South African
University. Journal of Student Affairs in Africa, 8(1), 1‑12. DOI: 10.24085/jsaa.v8i1.3824