New Types of Full-Time Students Combining Study with Work

Aim. To identify and describe the types of modern full-time students combining study and work.

Methodology. The study utilised system-activity and social-role methodological approaches. Of these, 100 students (majoring in “Pedagogical Education” specialisation, approximately half of whom work in this field) (N=100) and 20 teachers (N=20) participated in the study. The research method was an analytical interview, and the data were analysed using quantitative and qualitative content analysis. The statistical non-parametric test χ2 was used to analyse the quantitative data.

Results. The empirical study identified such types of working full-time students as “uncritical”; “critical”; “indifferent”; “cynic”. The mereological (typological) foundations for identifying these types of working full-time students were described and substantiated: a) motivation for studying, b) student character, c) compliance with university rules, d) study skills, including an understanding of the psychology of learning. The study also resulted in the identification of typological features characteristic specifically of working full-time students: “conscious non-compliance with academic rules” and “lack of adequate reflection on one's academic abilities.”

Research implications. The scientific novelty of this study lies in the identification and description of new types of modern full-time higher education students combining study and work, made for the first time. The theoretical significance of this study lies in its substantiation of the typological characteristics that should be used to construct a typology of full-time working students, as well as in the creation of a new typology of students. The practical significance of this study lies in the potential use of the obtained data in educational and pedagogical work with full-time students combining study and work, considering their typological characteristics. The obtained results can serve as the basis for the development of methodological recommendations for improving the educational activities and pedagogical work with this category of students.

Conclusion. It was concluded that, despite the differences in the types of working students, they are generally not considered successful, and that special methods for teaching and educating such students are needed. Furthermore, it is important to consider the fact that modern full-time working students have become more driven by pragmatic learning motives than by social benefit. This does not fully align with the country’s long-term economic and social development strategies and requires adjustment.

1. Akinsheva, I. P. (2024). Relevance of Studying the Political Socialization of Young People at the Present Stage. In: Pedagogical Education and Science, 1, 123–129. DOI: https:10.56163/2072-2524-2024-1-123-129 (in Russ.).

2. Baziyan-Kukhto, N. K., Kukhto, A. P. & Serebryakova, Yu. R. (2022). Psychology and Typology of Student Personality. In: Archives of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 31, 3, 298–301 (in Russ.).

3. Bocharov, V. Yu. & Gavrilyuk, T. V. (2023). Educational Trajectories as the Basis for the Typology of Students of Russian Universities. In: Social Area, 9 (3). URL: http://socialarea-journal.ru (accessed: 21.10.2025). DOI: https://doi.org/10.15838/sa.2023.3.39.9 (in Russ.).

4. Budyakova, T. P. (2011). Typology as a Tool for Victimological Research. In: Gaps in Russian Legislation, 6, 204–208 (in Russ.).

5. Vorontsova, M. V. & Politsarnova, A N. (2014). Analysis of Models of the Ideal and Real Student. In: Professional Representations, 6 (1), 89–97 (in Russ.).

6. Zhelnina, E. V. & Papchikhina, M. A. (2019). Social Portrait of a Modern Working Student: Sociological Analysis. In: Scientific Vector of the Balkans, 3 (5), 59–66. DOI: 10.34671/SCH.SVB.2019.0303.0015 (in Russ.).

7. Lisovsky, V. T. (1996). Sociology of Youth. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University publ. (in Russ.).

8. Lisovsky, V. T. (2005). On Youth and Youth Policy. Selected Works. St. Petersburg: Khimizdat publ. (in Russ.).

9. Lisovsky, V. T. & Dmitriev, A. V. (1974). Student Personality. Leningrad: Leningrad University publ. (in Russ.).

10. Malinsky, I. G. (2011). Current Problems of Forming Professional Self-Determination of University Students (Based on a Sociological Survey). In: Izvestiya of Saratov University. Sociology. Politology, 11 (1), 5–10 (in Russ.).

11. Murzina, S. M. (2010). Psychology and Typology of Student Personality. In: Scientific Notes of Orel State University, 1 (35), 180–187 (in Russ.).

12. Shnarbekova, M. K. (2021). The Role of Higher Education in the Reproduction of Social Inequality in the Labor Market of Kazakhstan. In: Higher Education in Russia, 30 (3), 114–127. DOI: 10.31992/0869-3617-2021-30-3-114-127 (in Russ.).

13. Brunton, R. J. & Sugden, N. (2025). Personality Traits as Predictors of Lurking and the Relationship With Academic Achievement in Higher Education. In: International Journal of Educational Research, 131 (4). URL: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles (accessed 10.10.2026). DOI: 10.1016/j.ijer.2025.102611.

14. Cheong, K. C. & Ong, B. (2014). Pre-college Profiles of First Year Students: A Typology. In: Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 123, 450–460. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1444 (in Russ.).

15. Cheung, K. & Zeng, Z. (2025). Big Five Personality Traits and University Students' Academic Performance: A Meta-Analysis. In: Personality and Individual Differences, 240. URL: https://www.scilit.com/publications (accessed: 10.10.2025). DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2025.113163.

16. Clark, B. R. & Trow, M. (1996). The Organizational Context. In: College Peer Groups: Problems and Prospects for Research. Chicago: Aldine publ., pp. 17–70.

17. Furnham, A. (2025). Personality and the Education Process: Individual Difference Preferences for Teacher, Technology, Testing, Time and Topic. In: Learning and Individual Differences, 119. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article (accessed: 10.10.2025). DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2025.102637.

18. Mammadov, S., Wang, S. & Lu, Z. (2024). Personality Types and Their Associations with Psychological Resilience, Coping with Stress, and Life Satisfaction Among Undergraduate Students: A Latent Profile Analysis Approach. In: Personality and Individual Differences, 222. URL: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2024-64900-001 (accessed: 21.10.2025). DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2024.112599.

19. Song, R., Pang, F. & Jiang, H. et al. (2024). A Machine Learning Based Method for Constructing Group Profiles of University Students. In: Heliyon, 7. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article (accessed: 10.10.2025). DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29181.

20. Tian, Y. & Ou, L. (2023). How Do Personality Traits of College Students Affect Their Learning Flow Experience? In: Learning and Motivation, 83. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article (accessed: 10.10.2025). DOI: 10.1016/j.lmot.2023.101917.