Review of Related Literature

Academic preparedness is defined by foundational competencies and self-regulated

behaviors. According to Gillum (2006), preparedness requires adequate skills in reading, writing,

and mathematics, with study habits like consistent class attendance (OR = 5.47) and exam

preparation being significant predictors of success. Expanding on this concept, Sadeghi et al.

(2024) identify three core components of self-directed learning readiness: self-management,

desire to learn, and self-control, though they note time management alone showed no significant

predictive value (β = 0.16, p = 0.151). Complementing these cognitive and behavioral aspects,

Aree et al. (2020) demonstrate that mental readiness is equally critical, with mindfulness

meditation effectively reducing anxiety (avg. 3.70/5 post-intervention) by improving focus during

academic tasks. Together, these studies show preparedness encompasses both measurable

skills and psychological resilience.

Preparedness proves particularly vital in engineering education due to its rigorous

demands. Aree et al. (2020) found that first-year engineering students often struggle with anxiety

(avg. 2.56/5) when transitioning to independent learning, a challenge addressed through

mindfulness training. This aligns with Gillum's (2006) finding that unprepared students frequently

require remediation, while Sadeghi et al. (2024) show that self-directed learning readiness

enables students to adapt to complex tasks, as evidenced by 96.4% of nursing students

demonstrating high SDLR. For engineering students, these findings suggest that academic

success depends not just on technical knowledge but also on the ability to self-regulate and

manage the psychological demands of the discipline.

Multiple interrelated factors shape student preparedness across disciplines. Academic

background emerges as a key determinant, with Gillum (2006) showing high school GPA (OR =

10.79) and school type (χ² = 4.563) significantly influencing college readiness. Demographic
factors also play a role, as females were more likely to enroll in remedial courses (χ² = 6.043) yet

achieved higher GPAs (χ² = 21.355), suggesting complex gender dynamics in preparedness

(Gillum, 2006). Meanwhile, Sadeghi et al. (2024) reveal that non-dormitory students showed

greater self-directed learning readiness (β = 2.46), while those with academic probation history

unexpectedly scored higher (β = 5.33), indicating adversity may sometimes enhance

preparedness. Finally, Aree et al. (2020) demonstrate that structured interventions like

mindfulness training can mitigate anxiety barriers, highlighting how institutional support

complements individual factors in fostering preparedness.

The quality of physical facilities in student housing significantly influences academic

performance and daily comfort. A study near Central Mindanao University (Arroyo, 2023) revealed

that while lighting was generally well-maintained and helped reduce eye strain during late-night

study sessions, ventilation was lacking, with students reporting difficulties concentrating due to

poor airflow in hot weather. Study areas were frequently cramped, lacking sufficient desks or quiet

zones, which forced students to study in bedrooms or shared spaces. Similarly, in Negros Oriental

State University (Salindo & Ubat, 2018), while electrical facilities like outlets and wiring were

considered reliable, the absence of proper study rooms was a concern. One student noted the

need to share a single table in the hallway for group study. Cleanliness was also a recurring

problem, as some landlords failed to provide regular garbage collection, creating unsanitary living

conditions. Additionally, the availability of furniture varied, with some accommodations fully

equipped and others requiring students to bring their own, leading to disparities.

Further insights from the hedonic model study (Fields et al., 2013) showed that internet

access was a top priority for students when choosing off-campus housing, often outweighing other

amenities. However, electricity was included in rent for only 22% of units, requiring students to

allocate extra budget for utilities. Though noise levels weren’t formally measured, interviews

revealed that thin walls and loud roommates were common distractions in cheaper housing.
These findings are supported by Aree et al. (2020), who emphasized the need for quiet and

comfortable spaces for effective mindfulness training, and by Sadeghi et al. (2024), who found

that students with strong time management skills tended to choose housing with dedicated study

areas to help maintain academic focus.

Privacy, crowding, and safety remain significant concerns in student housing. In Arroyo’s

(2023) Mindanao study, although 86.9% of boarding houses provided single bedrooms, shared

kitchens and bathrooms often led to conflicts, with students complaining about morning wait times

for showers. Safety measures were lacking, with outdated or missing fire extinguishers and first-

aid kits, and unsecured gates at night, raising security issues. Proximity to campus also played a

critical role in housing preferences. Fields et al. (2013) found students were willing to pay 16.3%

more to live within a mile of campus, preferring to walk to class to avoid transportation costs. In

contrast, properties beyond four miles saw a sharp rent decline as students felt disconnected from

friends and campus events.

Peer interactions offered both support and stress. Studies by Salindo & Ubat (2018) and

Arroyo (2023) revealed that while living with roommates fostered friendships and study groups,

overcrowding—such as four students sharing a small room—led to stress. Social events

organized by landlords, like weekly dinners or game nights, helped boost morale, but curfews

were poorly received, with some students feeling infantilized. These dynamics reflect broader

findings, such as those by Aree et al. (2020), where group mindfulness participants reported

reduced feelings of isolation in supportive environments. Similarly, Gillum (2006) highlighted that

first-generation students often struggle with loneliness in off-campus housing, underlining the

importance of inclusive and community-building policies.

Research indicates that on-campus housing positively influences academic performance,

with students demonstrating higher retention and graduation rates compared to their off-campus

counterparts (Sheffield, 2016). The structured residential environment facilitates greater access
to academic resources and faculty interaction, which may contribute to improved learning

outcomes. In contrast, off-campus living offers increased autonomy in lifestyle choices and living

arrangements, though this independence may also lead to greater distractions (Devi et al., 2015).

Notably, Devi et al. (2015) found that off-campus students reported higher instances of alcohol

and substance abuse, suggesting that reduced institutional oversight may negatively impact

academic focus despite potential benefits from peer collaboration in shared housing.

Financial considerations further differentiate these living arrangements. On-campus

housing typically incurs higher direct costs due to bundled expenses such as meal plans and

facility fees (Devi et al., 2015). However, off-campus options, while initially appearing more

affordable, often entail hidden costs including transportation, utilities, and maintenance, which

can diminish the perceived financial advantage (Devi et al., 2015). Additionally, Sheffield (2016)

highlights that commuting introduces logistical challenges, increasing stress and reducing time

available for academic engagement. Safety is another critical factor, as on-campus residences

generally provide enhanced security measures, whereas off-campus students may face varying

degrees of risk depending on location (Devi et al., 2015).

Research shows that on-campus housing supports better academic performance due to

closer proximity to learning resources and faculty, as well as a structured environment (Sheffield,

2016). Owolabi (2015) found that on-campus students at the University of Ibadan had significantly

higher GPAs (4.2) than off-campus students (3.5). They also engaged more in academic and

social activities, which may enhance retention and motivation. In contrast, off-campus students

experience more distractions and health issues. Owolabi (2015) reported higher rates of illnesses

such as malaria and typhoid among off-campus students, which may disrupt studies. This

supports Devi et al. (2015), who observed increased alcohol and substance use among off-

campus students due to reduced institutional oversight.

living often includes bundled costs like meals and facilities (Devi et al., 2015), off-campus housing

may appear cheaper but involves hidden expenses such as transportation and utilities. Owolabi

(2015) noted that off-campus students in Ibadan spent significantly more time commuting—up to

59 minutes daily—leading to added stress and less time for academics. Poor housing quality,

including overcrowding and lack of ventilation, also posed greater health risks. On-campus

residences generally offer safer, more consistent living conditions.

Empirical research consistently links housing conditions to academic performance.

Sheffield (2016) and Devi et al. (2015) found that on-campus students tend to achieve higher

GPAs and retention rates due to structured environments, proximity to resources, and institutional

support. Owolabi (2015) reinforced these findings in a study at the University of Ibadan, where

on-campus students had a significantly higher average GPA (4.2) than their off-campus

counterparts (3.5). The study also noted that on-campus students were more engaged in

academic and social activities, likely contributing to better academic outcomes. In contrast, off-

campus students experienced more frequent illnesses such as malaria and typhoid, which could

negatively impact attendance and concentration—further evidence that physical living conditions

directly affect academic success.

Housing conditions also shape students’ psychological well-being, influencing stress,

motivation, and focus. On-campus living often reduces daily stress by eliminating lengthy

commutes and minimizing household responsibilities (Sheffield, 2016). Owolabi (2015) found that

off-campus students spent significantly more time in transit—up to 59 minutes daily—compared

to 15 minutes for on-campus students, adding to their stress load. Poor housing quality and health

issues further contribute to mental strain. While some students value the independence of off-

campus living, others face distractions and increased exposure to risky behaviors, such as alcohol

use (Devi et al., 2015). Case studies from India, Malaysia, and Nigeria consistently show that the
benefits of on-campus housing—better health, greater academic engagement, and lower stress—

are observed across regions, supporting the call for improved housing policies and infrastructure

in higher education (Devi et al., 2015; Owolabi, 2015; Sheffield, 2016).

Civil engineering students face unique academic demands, including a rigorous curriculum

that balances technical proficiency with emerging global competencies (Mavroudhis, 2017). The

prescribed coursework often leaves limited flexibility for internationalization efforts, yet employers

increasingly expect graduates to possess skills like cross-cultural communication and global

teamwork, necessitating creative curricular adaptations (Mavroudhis, 2017). Additionally,

assessment types such as the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam highlight gaps in

preparedness, particularly in topics like surveying or transportation engineering, where limited

instructional time correlates with lower performance (Sloan & Frank, 2023). Knowledge surveys

(KS) have been employed to help students self-assess their mastery of these demanding topics,

revealing misalignments between confidence and performance, which can inform targeted

interventions (Sloan & Frank, 2023). These challenges underscore the need for tailored support

to address both the heavy study load and the evolving skill expectations in civil engineering

education.
 REFERENCES

Gillum, D. P. (2006). Community college students' perceived academic preparedness, study skills
and habits, college satisfaction, and factors influencing remediation (Publication No.
3230439) [Doctoral dissertation, Howard University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
Global.
https://www.proquest.com/openview/d47d89dd2bb1ea443af2245aeb74dac1/1?cbl=18750
&diss=y&pq-origsite=gscholar
Sadeghi, N., Janatolamakn, M., Rezaeian, S., Rashi, M., & Khatony, A. (2024). Exploring self-
directed learning readiness and related factors: The role of time management skills in
nursing students. BMC Medical Education, 24, Article 1088. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-
024-06083-w
Aree, P., Surawattanaboon, C., Kaewprapha, P., & Silawarawet, K. (2020, November 4–6). An
approach for mental preparation for first-year college students: A case study of engineering
students. In 2020 5th International STEM Education Conference (iSTEM-Ed). IEEE.
https://doi.org/10.1109/iSTEM-Ed50324.2020.9332797
Arroyo, R. A. (2023). Living conditions and academic performance of students occupying boarding
houses in Northern Mindanao. CMU Journal of Science, 27(1), 5–14.
https://doi.org/10.52751/YRPZ9068
Fields, T. J., Earhart, C., Liu, T., & Campbell, H. (2013). A Hedonic Model for Off-Campus Student
Housing: The Value of Proximity to Campus. Housing and Society, 40(1), 39–58.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08882746.2013.11430608
Sheffield, J. T. (2016). The quality of life and the financial burden of living on campus versus living
off campus at the University of West Alabama: A cost versus benefit analysis of renovating
Selden Hall. The University of West Alabama.
https://www.proquest.com/openview/63b0d6f2e9d48c0be0b110e75849756d/1?cbl=18750
&pq-origsite=gscholar
Devi, V., Ashari, S. N. B. M., Abd Rashid, S. B., NurAdlan, M. A. B., & Musadiq, M. M. B. M.
(2015). Cost, Benefit and Risks Associated with in-Campus and off-Campus
Accommodations of Medical Students: A cross-Sectional Study. International Journal of
Pharmacology and Clinical Sciences, 4(3). https://ijpcs.net/wp-
content/uploads/2024/05/IntJPharClinicalSci-4-3-58.pdf
Owolabi, B. O. (2015). A COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF ON-CAMPUS AND OFF-CAMPUS
STUDENTS’HOUSING IN THE UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN, NIGERIA (Doctoral
dissertation). https://afribary.com/works/a-comparative-assessment-of-on-campus-and-off-
campus-students-housing-in-the-university-of-ibadan-nigeria
Mavroudhis, V. G. (2017). Understanding One Institutions' Process in Preparing Civil Engineering
Students to Be Globally Competent (Doctoral dissertation, Northeastern University).
https://www.proquest.com/openview/83e034cc574afe948118b5141e505102/1?cbl=18750
&pq-origsite=gscholar
Sloan, J. A., & Frank, T. E. (2023). Student Self-Assessment Data: An Instrument for Program
Assessment. Intersection: A Journal at the Intersection of Assessment and Learning, 4(2),
n2. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1410688
 The living conditions of students, particularly those residing in off-campus dormitories, play a
significant role in shaping their academic preparedness. Students who live off-campus encounter specific
challenges that can adversely impact their academic performance. Consequently, this study aims to
investigate the influence of off-campus dormitory living conditions on the academic preparedness of civil
engineering students at Caraga State University (CSU). Addressing this issue is crucial, as students’
academic achievements is depend not only on the quality of education but also on their residential
environment.

According to Ezra et al. (2013) ; Fatunde (2010); Ige (2014) ; Obasi (2005), empirical research has
shown that students who reside outside the campus are likely to show poor academic performance. This
trend has been ascribed to the problems of off-campus insecurity, lack of student personnel management,
relationships and vulnerability to miscreants, easy indoctrination into cultism and other social vices, and
moral decadence (Davieset al.,2015). This statement clearly states that off-campus dormitories can
influence the academic preparedness of students particularly in Civil Engineering students at CSU. As
stated by Adekoya (2018), the specific problem is that the widespread lack of student housing creates
additional stress on students, resulting in lower academic performance among students who live off
campus. This means that living off campus not only affects the students physically but also emotionally
and mentally, giving stressors to students such as commuting everyday, unstable internet connection,
electricity problem, lack of quiet study space, and financial burdens. These stressors can compromise
students' ability to effectively prepare for their academic responsibilities and to perform well in their
studies. According to Akinkpelu, (2015); Ezra et al., (2013); Fatunde, 2010; Sen & Antara, (2018), those
students who reside off-campus are often faced with high rental costs and in most cases are compelled
to search for roommates to share the rental cost with. Some of them might be confronted with the
problem of absenteeism due to domestic problems such as transport, vagaries in weather, and social
distractions. Commented [1]: orig text