Many researchers and practitioners in the field of higher education have been emphasizing the crucial role of student experience at university in the development of students' knowledge and skills and their professional and personal growth (e.g. Astin 1984). Universities across the world have begun to consider the enhancement of student experience as one of their key strategic priorities (Buultjens & Robinson, 2011). However, despite the wide academic discussion on this concept and highlighting its importance for universities’ strategic planning, student experience still has not received proper theoretical elaboration (Pötschulat et al., 2021). Attempts to define it are inconsistent and frequently limited to listing different aspects of experience related to university (Clark & Trow, 1960; Hensley et al., 2018; Fosnacht et al., 2018; Maloshonok, 2020; Fischman & Gardner, 2022).

We also argue that not only the environmental aspects of student experience but the behavior of students in university settings, which is affected by the combinations and interrelations of individual and environmental characteristics, is essential for student growth. But little attention was paid to the plurality of student behavioral patterns at university. There are several typologies of students created on the basis of student time allocation between curricular and extracurricular activities at university and their life outside university (Hensley et al., 2018; Fosnacht et al., 2018; Maloshonok, 2020). Some researchers introduce new concepts to systematize student behavior patterns (Clark & Trow, 1960; Fischman & Gardner, 2022). For example, Clark and Trow (1960) suggest the concept of student subcultures and dividing all students into groups according to their ideas, interests, attitudes to university, and relationships with other students. In a recent book, Fischman and Gardner (2022) propose the concept of mental models to conceptualize student experience. This concept is used to capture student ideas about what their learning process at the university should look like, how to use additional opportunities and how to realize themselves within university settings. Despite these conceptualizations illuminating some critical aspects of student life at university and attempting to systemize and capture differences in the student body, they have serious limitations. First, these typologies are highly sensitive to national and institutional contexts. Second, the attempts to reduce the plurality of student behavior patterns to a limited number of types leads to the oversimplification of student behavior resulting in severe restrictions of these conceptual models for measuring and explaining student experience and behavior. 

To sum up, none of the existing conceptualizations can capture and explain the diversity of student behavior at the university. Concepts and theoretical approaches developed in previous research either focus on the narrow aspects of student behavior and experience at university, or oversimplify these phenomena, limiting the potential of using these approaches for research and practical implementation. The current study aims to overcome these limitations by developing a conceptual approach for the deeper understanding of diverse student behavior at university.

Our conceptual model is grounded in the behaviorist and constructivist paradigms explaining how learning occurs and is informed by the results of previous research on different aspects of student experience at university. We identified the following dimensions of student behavior: 1) interaction with course content in class; 2) persistence; 3) self-learning; 4) irresponsible learning behavior; 5) active learning; 6) friendship; 7) study collaboration; 8) obedience; 9) creating a positive self-image; 10) extracurricular involvement (Maloshonok & Vilkova, 2024). Data were collected during a longitudinal study of student behavior patterns and academic outcomes in seven Russian universities. The convenience sampling method including two stages was utilized. At the first stage, we randomly selected undergraduate programs (n=131) at each university. At the second stage, each student from the selected programs was invited to participate in the research by email. The Ethics Committee of HSE University, Russia, approved the study on September 19, 2022. The first wave of the study was conducted in Fall 2022. First-year students, who agreed to participate in the research project, were asked to fill out the consent form, take a standardized test on critical thinking, and to respond to questions from an online survey about their demographics, family characteristics, educational background, and school-university transition. The second wave of the study included questions about student behavior, well-being, motivation, self-reported assessment of skills improvement, time-use, and satisfaction with the educational programs and the university. In Fall 2022, 3353 first-year students participated in the study with a response rate (RR) of 66%. In Fall 2023, 1679 of them took part in the second wave (RR = 33%). The final sample included 1,253 respondents, who participated in both waves. Fifty-three percent of the sample are males, 59% are from Engineering majors, 16% are from Mathematics and Science, 16% are from Humanities, and 9% are from Social sciences. Most of the sample (70%) are state-subsidized students. Sixty-four percent of the sample are from middle and high-income families. Our analytic strategy had three steps. In the first step, we applied the principal component analysis (PCA) to identify factor structure measuring each aspect of student behavior. Second, we used cluster analysis (k-means) to construct a typology of students based on their behavior. Third, we used non-parametric chi-square tests to compare these clusters in terms of sex, academic performance, satisfaction with education, and habits.

Based on our analysis, we identified six types of student behavior at university: academically focused, demonstrative behavior, minimal effort, unengaged in university life, well-rounded achievers, and socially active at the expense of academics. Academically focused (18%) students excel in self-learning, persistence, and classroom engagement but show little interest in social or extracurricular activities. They achieve high academic performance, are less prone to harmful habits, and are more often female. Demonstrative behavior (5%) students balance academic diligence with irresponsible learning behavior. They are highly active in class and extracurriculars, focusing on self-image and reputation. However, they often neglect academic obligations and are among the least satisfied with university life. Minimal effort (22%) students exert only enough effort to pass, with average to low engagement across all academic and social aspects. Their academic performance is moderate, and their interactions with peers are mostly study-related. Unengaged in university life (16%) students show the lowest involvement in academic and extracurricular activities. Their interests lie outside the university, and they tend to have the lowest academic performance and satisfaction. Males are more likely to belong to this group. Well-rounded achievers (22%) are fully engaged in university life, excelling academically while actively participating in social and extracurricular activities. They are the most satisfied with their student experience, and females are more frequently in this category. Socially active at the expense of academics (17%) students prioritize friendships, self-image, and extracurriculars over academics, often neglecting coursework. They are more likely to engage in harmful habits and tend to be among the least satisfied students. Males are slightly more represented in this group.

Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297–308. Buultjens, M., & Robinson, P. (2011). Enhancing aspects of the higher education student experience. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 33(4), 337–346. Clark, B. R., & Trow, M. (1960). Determinants of college student subculture. Center for the Study of Higher Education, University of California (Berkeley). Fischman, W., & Gardner, H. (2022). The real world of college: What higher education is and what it can be. MIT Press. Fosnacht, K., McCormick, A. C., & Lerma, R. (2018). First-year students’ time use in college: A latent profile analysis. Research in Higher Education, 59, 958–978. Hensley, L. C., Wolters, C. A., Won, S., & Brady, A. C. (2018). Academic probation, time management, and time use in a college success course. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 48(2), 105–123. Maloshonok, N. (2020). Undergraduate time-use: A comparison of US, Chinese, and Russian students at highly selective universities. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(3), 515–531. Maloshonok, N., & Vilkova, K. (2024). Student behavior at university: The development and validation of a 10-dimensional scale. PLOS ONE, 19(11), e0313357. Pötschulat, M., Moran, M., & Jones, P. (2021). ‘The student experience’ and the remaking of contemporary studenthood: A critical intervention. The Sociological Review, 69(1), 3–20.