1. METHODOLOGY Target population All students from 2 nd year to 4 th year in Audiology and Speech Sciences Department in National University Malaysia (UKM). Study population Students from 3 rd year to 4 th year in Audiology and Speech Sciences Department in National University Malaysia (UKM). Study design Cross sectional study Questionnaires were distributed to the selected undergraduates from Audiology and Speech Sciences Department.

2. Sampling method: Random sampling Sampling frame: Name lists of all third year and fourth year Audiology and Speech Sciences students were obtained from Audiology and Speech Sciences Department. Sample unit Student (either third year or fourth year) from Audiology and Speech Sciences Department.

3. Inclusion criteria: All the third year and fourth year Audiology and Speech Sciences Students Exclusion criteria: Audiology and Speech Sciences students who withdraw from the courses.

4. Sample size: Total subject: students.( : third year students, students from fourth year students) n 0 =Z 2 p(1-p)/e 2 = n= n 0 /1+ [(n 0 -1)/N] = N=amount of total population Z= Z-score p=estimated proportion of an attribute that is present in the population e= confidence interval

5. Statistical analysis The data was analyzed by using SPSS 17 Linear correlation : Spearman's Rho (learning style, stress) and Pearson Correlation (time management) Descriptive analysis

6. MATERIAL Questionnaire Consent form Part A : Respondent information Part B : Time management ( 5 questions ) Part C : Perceived stress scale ( 10 questions ) Part D : Learning style ( 10 questions ) All the questions are in likert scale from 0 – 4. 0; never, 1; almost never, 2; sometimes, 3; almost often, 4; very often

7. SPSS 17 Linear correlation : Spearman's Rho (learning style, stress) and Pearson Correlation (time management) Descriptive analysis

8. RELIABILITY Intrinsic reliability : Cronbach’s alpha Part B : Time management: 0.6 Part C : Perceived stress scale: 0.8 Part D : Learning style: 0.8 α of 0.6-0.7 indicates acceptable reliability and 0.8 or higher indicates good reliability

9. VALIDITY Face validity - researchers determine if the test seems to measure what is intended to measure. Content validity - contents are agreed by the experts.