LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 24, No. 1, October 2021 LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching http://e-journal.usd.ac.id/index.php/LLT Sanata Dharma University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia 401 STUDENTS’ PERCEPTUAL ENGLISH LEARNING STYLE: MAJOR AND MINOR PREFERENCES IN HIGHER EDUCATION Muhammad Arif1, Muhammad Danial2 and Nurhaeni3 Universitas Sulawesi Barat, Indonesia muh.arif192@gmail.com; muhammad_danial@unsulbar.ac.id; nurhaeni@unsulbar.ac.id correspondence: DOI: 10.24071/llt.v24i1.3499 received 4 July 2021; accepted 31 October 2021 Abstract Every students have different ways in collecting, processing, and understanding information. Those refers to the preferences of students in learning or known as learning styles. Therefore, this study aimed to identify and recognize the students’ major and minor perceptual learning style preferences in English Education Department at Universitas Sulawesi Barat. This research was used quantitative approach by using survey design. This research was conducted in English Education Department at Universitas Sulawesi Barat with 79 respondents or college students who were selected by Saturated sampling. The data of this research were collected by using Reid’s (1987) Perceptual Learning Style Preferences Questionnaire (PLSPQ). The data were analysed with self-scoring based on Reid (1978) and descriptive statistic by using SPSS Software Statistic Version 20. The findings of the research shows the averages of the learning style of college students in English Education Department at Universitas Sulawesi Barat the year 2019 was categorized as none major perceptual learning styles preference. On the other hand, they were categorized as minor perceptual learning styles preference, in which kinaesthetic learning style had highest mean with (37.84) than another learning style, and followed by group learning style with mean (37.67), tactile with mean (36.91), auditory with mean (36.55), visual with mean (35.87), and individual learning style with mean (34.73). Even though they were categorized as minor perceptual learning styles preference, but the students still be able to learn better by their high minor condition. Keywords: identifying, learning style preference, PLSPQ Introduction Teaching and learning are both of process between transferring and understanding information in the classroom by educator and students. Therefore, educator or teacher should be able to provide a good learning environment in order to make students be able to learn more comfortable in learning. Such as statement by Iskandawasid & Sunendar (2013:153) in Hardiana (2018) state that teacher has responsibility in creating a conducive learning environment for students’ effective and efficiency in learning. Instead, every students have different ways in collecting, processing, and understanding information. Those LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 24, No. 1, October 2021 402 refer to the preferences of students in learning or known as learning styles. As the statement of Khatib (2013) learners have different strength and preferences in the way they collect, process, and recognize information into useful knowledge (Learning styles). Thus that a lot of researcher believe such as theory of Reid (1995) mentioned in Khalil and Sabir (2019) state that some people learn mainly with visual, some others learn by hearing or auditory, and some other prefer in learning with kinaesthetic, and by “hands-on” or with tactile. He also said that people learn better when they work individually or by themselves, while other people learn better when they work in group. Therefore, learners need to recognize their own learning styles preferences in case it can be effected to the learning process and learning achievement result. Such as theory of Khatib (2013) “recognizing learning styles by learners will aids teachers, instructors, adults, educators, course designers, program and training developers to develop a curriculum and address individual learning needs”. However, learners frequently still to be passive while in learning, such as theories of Farina & Yawat (2010) and Nawir (2016) which found that learners still often to be passive and got more low score in language learning which caused of unawareness learning style by learners and the mismatch of teaching style by lecture to the unique students’ learning styles. Beside the issues, the researcher also found the similar case in English Education Department at Universitas Sulawesi Barat which were students still to be passive in learning.it was caused by the mismatch of unawareness teaching style by lecture and learning style by learners. Therefore, this research had objectives to find out the major and minor learning style preferences of college students in English Education Departmenxcxct at Universitas Sulawesi Barat. Two research questions to guide this study are: 1. What are the major students’ perceptual learning style preferences in English Department of Education at Universitas Sulawesi Barat? 2. What are the minor students’ perceptual learning style preferences in English Department of Education at Universitas Sulawesi Barat? Method Participant This research was conducted in English Education Department at Universitas Sulawesi Barat. For the population of this research as the sampling frame included all classes in English Education Department at Universitas Sulawesi Barat the year 2019 that consist of three classes. As the statement of Creswell (2012:142a) defined population is “a group of individuals who have the same characteristic”. Meanwhile, Creswell (2012:142b) also defined a target population (sampling frame) as “a group of individuals (or a group of organizations) with some common defining characteristic that the researcher can identify and study”. Therefore, for the sampling technique of this research used saturated sampling in case the researcher used all of the total population to be studied that consist of 79 college students in three classes. As the statement of Arikunto (2012:104) Saturated sampling is used if the total of the population selected to be studied, in which the condition of population is less than a hundred, and if the population is more than a hundred, a sample can be selected from 10-15% or 20-25% from the population. In addition, Sugiyono (2013:85) defined saturated sampling as a LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 24, No. 1, October 2021 403 technique of selecting a sample if the total of population is selected to be a sample. This research used quantitative approach with descriptive survey design. As the statement of Dr. Y.P. Agarwal (2008) as cited in (Salaria, 2012) “descriptive research is devoted to the gathering of information about prevailing conditions or situations for the purpose of description and interpretation”. Meanwhile, Creswell (2012, 376) defined survey design are “procedures in quantitative research in which investigators administer a survey to a sample or to the entire population of people to describe the attitudes, opinions, behaviours, or characteristic of the population”. And then the researcher interpret the meaning of the data by relating results of the statistical test back to last research studies. To collect the data, the researcher created Web-Based Survey or online questionnaire based on Reid’s (1987) by using Google Form. The form of questionnaire were distributed by using a link to the respondents. As the statement of Creswell (2018:385) “Web- based questionnaire is a survey instrument for collecting data that is available on the computer”. In addition, by using Web-based questionnaire survey can gather extensive data quickly, employ tested forms and sample questions rather than having to design them, and take advantage of the extensive use of the Web by individuals today, including its use as a site for social networking (Creswell, 2012:385). As the statement of (Sugiyono, 2018) instrument of research is used to measure a value of a variable. Therefore, the researcher used Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire (PLSPQ) by Reid (1987) to measure the college students perceptual learning styles preference which were visual, auditory, kinesthetic, tactile, group, and individual learning. The questionnaire was consisted of 30 questions, and each of the questions are represented five questions of learning style preferences and every question in the questionnaire randomized in order to make learners could not draw to specific learning styles. In addition, the questionnaire was based on likert scale as the statement of Sugiyono (2018:134) likert scale is used to measure attitudes, opinions, and perception of somebody or people that related to the social phenomenon. Technique of data analysis is used to answers the research questions or used to test a hyphotheis that have been formulated in research (Sugiyono, 2018:333). Therefore, the data of questionnaires were analysed by using SPSS software statistic which were descriptive statistic and self scorring based on Reid (1987). Findings and Discussion The data obtained through of distributing Reid’s (1987) perceptual learning style preference questionnaire to the respondents, in which the questionnaire based on likert scale that have range from 1 up to 5. The range explained as (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = undecided, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree). Meanwhile, every number of questions in the questionnaire represent 5 perceptual learning style were visual learning at number (6, 10, 12, 24, 29), auditory learning at number (1, 7, 9, 17, 20), kinaesthetic learning at number (2, 8, 15, 19, 26), tactile learning at number (11, 14, 16, 22, 25), group learning at number (3, 4, 5, 21, 23) and individual learning at number (13, 18, 27, 28, 30). Moreover, to calculate and determine the data of questionnaire it was used self-scoring by Reid’s were the sum of each category of learning style namely visual, auditory, kinaesthetic, tactile, group and individual learning were multiply LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 24, No. 1, October 2021 404 by two, and the result of multiplication could be classified into major, minor, or negligible learning style preference. Therefore, the range of perceptual learning style preference showed in the table as follow: Table 1. The range of learning style preferences categories Major learning style preference 40-50 Minor learning style preference 25-39 Negligible 0-24 Analysis of Every Learning Style After the researcher collected the data from the respondent. The data were calculated by using self-scoring by Reid’s (1987) and continued analyse the data with descriptive analysis. Moreover, after the data analysed by self-scoring based on Reid’s (1987), then the data of questionnaire analysed with Descriptive statistic by using SPSS software statistic version 20.The result of the data analysis can be seen by the tables as follow: Table 2. Showed the mean results of each learning style in which none of learning styles of college students at Universitas Sulawesi Barat the year 2019 categorized as major perceptual learning style preference based on the table of descriptive statistic. Meanwhile, the table of descriptive statistic (table 2.) showed that all of learning style categorized as minor perceptual learning style preference, in which kinaesthetic learning style had highest mean with (37.84) than another learning style, and followed by group learning style with mean (37.67), tactile with mean (36.91), auditory with mean (36.55), visual with mean (35.87), and individual learning style with mean (34.73). Meanwhile, because of every perceptual learning style in PLSPQ questionnaire consisted five questions or statements which represented the learning style, the researcher decided to looking for which questions who had mostly chosen by the respondents. Therefore, the researcher adopted a table criteria from Muhidin and Abdurahman (2007) as cited in Hilyatun (2017) to identify that. The table showed as follow: Table 2. The result of data analysis with descriptive statistic N Range Minimu m Maximu m Mean Std. Deviation Variance Visual 79 24.0 24.0 48.0 35.873 4.8181 23.215 Tactile 79 20.0 28.0 48.0 36.911 4.4237 19.569 Auditory 79 26.0 24.0 50.0 36.557 4.8563 23.583 Group 79 20.0 28.0 48.0 37.671 4.1686 17.377 Kinesthetic 79 26.0 24.0 50.0 37.848 5.1118 26.130 Individual 79 30.0 20.0 50.0 34.734 6.4940 42.172 Valid N (listwise) 79 LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 24, No. 1, October 2021 405 Table 3. The Descriptive Analysis Criteria Score Category Range Description Analysis 1.00 – 1.79 1.80 – 2.59 2.60 – 3.39 3.40 – 4.19 4.20 – 5.00 Strongly Low Low Sufficient High Strongly High Adopted from (Abdurahman, 2007) in (Hilyatun, 2017) Furthermore, these table as follow showed which questions of every perceptual learning style that consisted five questions were mostly chosen by the respondent. The table can be seen as follows: Table 4. showed that among five questions or statements in visual learning style were college students as visual learning mostly chose at statements 12, “I understand better when I read instructions myself” with mean (3.97) in which categorized as high as it showed in table 4. The descriptive analysis criteria, and followed by statement 6, “I learn better by reading what teacher writes on the whiteboard” with mean (3.81), statement 10, “When I read instruction, I remember them better” with mean (3.58), and statement 24, “I learn better by seeing the directions than by listening to someone” with mean (3.54). Meanwhile, statement 29, “I learn more by reading textbooks than by listening to lecturer.” With mean (3.01) which categorized as sufficient. The Table 5. shows that college students which auditory learning mostly chose question or statement 7, “When someone tell me how to do something in the class, I learn better” with mean (3.94) which categorized as high, and followed by statement 1, “When the teacher tells me the instructions I understand better” with mean (3.73), statement 20, “I learn better in class when I listen to someone” with mean (3.64), statement 9, “I remember things I have heard in class better Table 4. The description of visual learning style statement Statements N Min Max Mean I learn better by reading what teacher writes on the whiteboard. 79 3.00 5.00 3.8101 When I read instruction, I remember them better. 79 2.00 5.00 3.5823 I understand better when I read instructions myself. 79 1.00 5.00 3.9747 I learn better by seeing the directions than by listening to someone. 79 2.00 5.00 3.5443 I learn more by reading textbooks than by listening to lecturer. 79 1.00 5.00 3.0127 Table 5. The description of auditory learning style statement Statements N Min Max Mean When the teacher tells me instructions I understand better. 79 2.00 5.00 3.7342 When someone tells me how to do something in the class, I learn better. 79 2.00 5.00 3.9494 I remember things I have heard in class better than things I have read. 79 1.00 5.00 3.4810 I learn better in class when the teacher gives a lecture. 79 1.00 5.00 3.4684 I learn better in class when I listen to someone. 79 2.00 5.00 3.6456 LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 24, No. 1, October 2021 406 than things I have heard” with mean (3.48), statement 17, “I learn better in class when the teacher gives a lecture” with mean (3.4). Meanwhile, table 6. shows that college students which kinaesthetic learning mostly chose at questions or statement 8, “when I make things in class, I learn better” in which categorized as high mean (4.06) than another statements and followed by statement 26, “I learn best in class when I can participate in related activities” with mean (3.96), statement 15, “I enjoy learning in the class by doing experiment” with mean (3.87), statement 19, “I understand things better in class when I participate in role-play” with mean (3.72), while statement 2, “I prefer to learn by moving around and doing something in class” categorized as sufficient with mean (3.27) Table 7. shows that college students who had characteristic as tactile learning mostly chose at question or statement 11, “I learn more when I can make a model of something” with mean (3.79) in which categorized as high, and followed by statement 16, “I learn better when I make drawings as I study” with mean (3.73), while statement 22 and 25, “When I build something, I remember what I have learned better” and “I enjoy making something for a class project” had the same mean (3.65), and statement 14, “I learn more when I make something for class project” with mean (3.60). Table 8. shows that college students who had characteristic and prefer in group learning mostly chose question or statement 23, “I prefer to study with others” with mean (3.94) in which categorized as high, and followed by statement Table 6. The description of kinaesthetic learning style statement Statements N Min Max Mean I prefer to learn by moving around and doing something in class 79 1.00 5.00 3.2785 When I make things in class, I learn better. 79 2.00 5.00 4.0633 I enjoy learning in the class by doing experiments. 79 2.00 5.00 3.8734 I understand things better in class when I participate in role-play 79 2.00 5.00 3.7215 I learn best in class when I can participate in related activities 79 2.00 5.00 3.9620 Table 7. The description of tactile learning style statement Statements N Min Max Mean I learn more when I can make a model of something. 79 2.00 5.00 3.7975 I learn more when I make something for class project. 79 2.00 5.00 3.6076 I learn better when I make drawings as I study. 79 2.00 5.00 3.7342 When I build something, I remember what I have learned better. 79 2.00 5.00 3.6582 I enjoy making something for a class project. 79 1.00 5.00 3.6582 Table 8. The description of group learning style statement Statements N Min Max Mean I get more work done when I work with others. 79 2.00 5.00 3.9114 I learn more when I study with a group. 79 2.00 5.00 3.6709 In class, I learn best when I work with others. 79 2.00 5.00 3.5696 I enjoy working on an assignment with two or three classmates. 79 2.00 5.00 3.7342 I prefer to study with others. 79 3.00 5.00 3.9494 LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 24, No. 1, October 2021 407 3, “I get more work done when I work with others” with mean (3.91), statement 21, “I enjoy working on an assignment with two or three classmates” with mean (3.73), statement 4, “I learn more when I study with a group” with mean (3.67), and statement 5, “In class, I learn best when I work with others.” with mean (3.56). Table 9. shows that college students who had characteristic and prefer in individual learning mostly chose question or statement 13, “When I study alone, I remember things better” in which categorized as high with mean (3.89) and followed by statement 18, “When I work alone, I learn better” with mean (3.82), statement 30, “In general I prefer to work by myself” with mean (3.37), while statement 27 and 28, “In class I work better when I work alone” and “I prefer working on projects by myself” in which categorized as sufficient with mean (3.21) and (3.07). Individually analysis on Students’ Major Learning Style This results of data analysis were showed the percentages by diagrams on analysis individually from students were categorized as major learning style, in which consisted of two kinds as follow: Students which have only one dominant learning style. Based on the table percentage, the researcher illustrated the table into chart diagram which described the total of students who have one dominant learning style preferences. The diagram showed as follow: Figure 1 The diagram percentage of students who had only one dominant learning style Table 9. The description of individual learning style statement Statements N Min Max Mean When I study alone, I remember things better. 79 2.00 5.00 3.8987 When I work alone, I learn better. 79 2.00 5.00 3.8228 In class I work better when I work alone. 79 1.00 5.00 3.2152 I prefer working on projects by myself. 79 1.00 5.00 3.0759 In general I prefer to work by myself. 79 1.00 5.00 3.3797 LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 24, No. 1, October 2021 408 The diagram shows that the students of group learning style had highest percentage rather than other learning style with 12,50 %, then followed by tactile and individual with percentage 6,25 %, and kinaesthetic learning style with percentage 4.69 % of students. Students which have more than one dominant learning style. Based on the table percentage, the researcher illustrated the table into chart diagram which described the total of students who have more than one dominant learning style preferences. The diagram showed as follow: Figure 2. diagram percentage of students who had more than one dominant learning style. The diagram shows the percentage of students at (visual, tactile, auditory, group, kinaesthetic, individual), the students at (visual, tactile, auditory, group, kinaesthetic), and the students at (auditory & kinaesthetic) had the same highest percentage or they were equal with 11,76 %. And then followed with the students at (group & kinaesthetic), (tactile & kinaesthetic), and (tactile, auditory, group, kinaesthetic) with the percentage 5,88 % of students. Afterwards, it followed with some others lower percentage of learning style with 2, 94 % as well. As it showed in Image 4.2 The Diagram percentage of students who had more than one dominant learning style. Discussion The result of data analysis in the previous were overviewed the averages of the learning style of college students in English Education Department at Universitas Sulawesi Barat the year 2019 was categorized as none major perceptual learning styles preference, whereas they were categorized as minor perceptual learning style preferences in which kinaesthetic learning style had highest mean with (37.84) than another learning style, and followed by group learning style with mean (37.67), tactile with mean (36.91), auditory with mean LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 24, No. 1, October 2021 409 (36.55), visual with mean (35.87), and individual learning style with mean (34.73). Meanwhile, for the result analysis individually on students’ learning style preferences, it showed in (Image. 4.1 The Diagram percentage of students who had only one dominant learning style preferences), it was described that there were 12,50 % of students categorized in group learning style, and followed by students categorized in tactile and visual in which both of had the equal percentage with 6,25 %. And then followed with kinaesthetic with percentage 4,69 % of students. Instead of that, the diagram percentage of students who had more than one dominant learning style preferences (Image 4.2) as well as was described the students at (visual, tactile, auditory, group, kinaesthetic, individual), the students at (visual, tactile, auditory, group, kinaesthetic), and the students at (auditory & kinaesthetic) had the same highest percentage or they were equal each other with 11,76 %. And then followed with the students at (group & kinaesthetic), (tactile & kinaesthetic), and (tactile, auditory, group, kinaesthetic) with percentage 5,88 % of students. Afterwards, it was followed by some others lower percentage of learning style preferences with 2, 94 %. Therefore, in general by comparing to the similar previous findings of perceptual learning style preferences on this research it was not corresponding. On the other hand, there was had similar result which in line to this research such as Jamulia (2018) found that only visual learning style of students at IAIN Ternate was categorized as major perceptual learning style preference, while kinaesthetic, individual, tactile, auditory, and group learning style was categorized as minor perceptual learning style. The result indicated that there was similar result on minor except on major perceptual learning style preference, it was overviewed the result on this research by the table of descriptive statistic (Tabel 4.3). Moreover, Khalil (2019) found that kinaesthetic learning style was the most commonly preferred learning style among students all of major after investigating the Saudi EFL students’ preferred learning styles and explore whether these learning styles were affected academic major with 120 Saudi students at a private college in four different majors. The result indicated there was similar result on this research through the learning style preference in general which kinaesthetic more preferred, even though the sample size or the respondents was different by the researcher. Another researches that related to the perceptual learning style preference was by Nosratinia & Solaemannejad (2016) found that there were significant and positive relationships between participants’ critical thinking and total score of perceptual learning style in which tactile learning style preference was the best predictor of EFL learners’ critical thinking. The result indicated there was different result by the researcher in which kinaesthetic learning style were found by the researcher more preferred by students in minor field rather than tactile learning style. Meanwhile, Daniatussalma (2020) tried to investigate the perceptual learning styles preference in Management students and to know the differences between male and female Management students in learning styles in the first semester at University of Muhammadia Gresik with 230 students were found that students preferred in Group style when the students learned English as Academic Purpose LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 24, No. 1, October 2021 410 (ESP), and beside the gender, female students preferred in group style, while male students preferred in auditory. And the least preference of learning style both female and male students was individual style. The result indicated that there was different result by the researcher and her research where Daniatusaalma (2020) tried to investigate the different learning style in gender group while the researcher only identified the major and minor of students or learners. Based on the phenomenon that researcher found, the case might affected by several main factors such as the size of the sample and the degree of how the data spread in to data set namely the variability of the data as it showed in the (Table 4.3) at column variance where every perceptual learning style preferences had different variety of data, such as individual learning style had highest variance than others with (42.17) and followed by kinaesthetic with (26.13), auditory with (23.58), visual with (23.21), tactile with (19.56), and group learning style with variance (17.37). Meanwhile, another factors that might played the role was culture and the major field of learners. As it had been mentioned by Reid’s theory (1978) about ESL Learning Style Preferences as “for reasons yet unknown (although culture may certainly play a role)”. Therefore, the statement indicated that there was influence of culture to the result of the students learning style preferences. Therefore, even though the perceptual learning styles preference of college students at Universitas Sulawesi Barat the years 2019 categorized as minor. The students or learners can function as a learner or study in their high minor condition. It showed in the result of data analysis in every 5 statements of PLSPQ namely (a) When I make things in class, I learn better, (b) I understand better when I read instructions myself, (c) When someone tell me how to do something in the class, I learn better, (d) I prefer to study with others (e) When I study alone, I remember things better, (f) I learn more when I can make a model of something. Moreover, by the statements that had been overviewed, educators or lecturers can appropriate teaching style and methodology in learning process that related to statements of the students’ minor perceptual learning style preferences at Universitas Sulawesi Barat the year 2019 in order to make them be able studying better by their minor learning styles preference. As it explained on this research about the theories of Reid (1987) at page (18) in chapter II that related to learning style which explaining as follow; Firstly, visual learner more preferred and comfortable in learning with pictures, images, or graph in retaining information (Jamulia, 2018). Meanwhile, Fleming (2019) explaining as well as some tips or strategies for teachers to support visual learners in the classroom such as; (a) giving visual learners quite study time to review their notes, outline chapters, or draw diagrams. (b) Playing short video clips during the class to reinforce concepts discussed during lecture. (c) Avoid “cold-calling” on visual learners after a lecture presentation, as they need a view minutes to process the information that they have just heard. (d) Create opportunities for students to express their creativity in class such as poster project and short skits. Secondly, Auditory learner prefers in learning with hearing and listening to word (Renon, 2009). Moreover, Fleming (2020) explaining as well as several strategies for teachers to help auditory learners in the classroom as the teaching strategies such as; (a) call on auditory learners to answer questions, (b) during LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 24, No. 1, October 2021 411 lectures, ask auditory learners to repeat ideas in their own words, (c) record lectures would make auditory learners can listen to them more than once, (d) create lesson plans that include a social element, such as paired readings, group working, experiments, projects, and performances, (e) allow students with an auditory learning style to listen to approved music during silent study periods. Thirdly, kinaesthetic learner retain information through the performance body movements (Bennuona, 1994) in (Rhouma, 2016). Moreover, Roell (2018) as well as explaining several tips or strategies for teachers in reaching kinaesthetic learners during studying in the classroom such as; (a) allow kinaesthetic learners to stand, bounce their legs, or doodle during lectures, it will get more out of them in class if they can move around a little bit, (b) offer various methods of instruction lectures, paired readings, group work, experiments, projects, plays, etc, and (c) providing or handling out quizzes, writing on the chalkboard, or even rearranging desks. Fourthly, tactile learner prefer by “hands-on” learning, such as doing artwork, laboratory experiment, building models and tracking words and pictures (David. 2007 & Reid, 1998). Moreover, Fleming (2019) as well as explaining several points for teachers in teaching tactile learner such as; (a) studying in short blocks of time, (b) role-playing, (c) taking lab classes, (d) taking field trips or visiting museums, (e) studying with others, (f) using memory games, (g) using flashcards to memorize, and (h) “acting out” a topic, stories, and subjects they study. Five, learner which preferred in group learning more enjoyed and comfortable studying with other (Jamulia, 2018). Moreover, Jennie Nguyen explained the strategies that can be applied in learning process for group learning style which are; (a) Collaborative learning, which allows students to work together to discuss something with a group in the classroom, and (b) Cooperative learning, allows students to work together in small group on an activity, in which requiring to meet together and split the work and putting them together as a team. Sixth, individual learner prefers studying alone or independent (Jamulia, 2018). Therefore, the strategies that could be apply by a teacher in the classroom for this learner is inquiry-based instruction. As it mentioned Heather (2018) that inquiry-based instruction would be able to inspire the students to think by themselves and become independent learners. Therefore, by this case lecture or teacher can use this strategies for students’ individual learning style in the classroom. Conclusion According to findings and discussion it could be inferred that averages of the learning style of college students in English Education Department at Universitas Sulawesi Barat the year 2019 was categorized as none major perceptual learning styles preference. Somehow, his study found the averages of All the learning style of college students in English Education Department at Universitas Sulawesi Barat the year 2019 was categorized as minor perceptual learning style preference in which kinaesthetic learning style had highest mean with (37.84) than another learning style, and followed by group learning style with mean (37.67), tactile with mean (36.91), auditory with mean (36.55), visual with mean (35.87), and individual learning style with mean (34.73). Meanwhile, for additional result of analysis with individually of students which had only one dominant learning style, LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 24, No. 1, October 2021 412 it showed in (Image. 4.1) it was described that there were 12,50 % of students categorized in group learning style, and followed by students categorized in tactile and visual in which both of had the equal percentage with 6,25 %. And then followed with kinaesthetic with percentage 4,69 % of students. Moreover for the result analysis of students which had more than one dominant learning style preferences showed in Image 4.2. the students at (visual, tactile, auditory, group, kinaesthetic, individual), the students at (visual, tactile, auditory, group, kinaesthetic), and the students at (auditory & kinaesthetic) had the same highest percentage or they were equal each other with 11,76 %. And then followed with the students at (group & kinaesthetic), (tactile & kinaesthetic), and (tactile, auditory, group, kinaesthetic) with percentage 5,88 % of students. Afterwards, it was followed by some others lower percentage of learning style preferences with 2, 94 %. Therefore, even though none of the learning style of college students in English Education Department at Universitas Sulawesi Barat the year 2019 categorized as major perceptual learning styles preference, but the students still be able to learn better by their high minor condition in every learning style. Therefore, educator or lecture can provide teaching style and method that related to the minor learning style preferences in order to make them be able study better. References Bidabadi, F. S., & Yawat, H. (2010). Learning style preferencs by Iranian EFL freshman University Students. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research. Boston: Pearson Educarion, Inc. Daniatussalama, Arifani, Y., & Asmara, C. H. (2020). Language learnig syle in management students from different gender group. Fleming, G. (2021, April 03). Make the most of your tactile learning style. Retrieved from Thoughtco.com: https://www.thoughtco.com/tactile-learning- style-1857111 __________, G. (2021, April 03). The auditory learning style. Retrieved from Thoughtco.com: https://www.thoughtco.com/auditory-learning-style-p3- 3212038 __________, G. (2021, April 03). Visual learning style: Traits and study strategies. Retrieved from Thoughtco..com: https://www.thoughtco.com/visual-learning-style-p2-1857113 Hardiana, M. T. (2018). The effectiveness of VAK (Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic) in learning of summary writing. Heather. (2018, february 23). 7 effective teaching strategies for the classroom. Retrieved from www.quizalize.com: www.quizalize.com/blog/2018/02/23/teaching-strategies Jamulia, J. (2018). Identifiying students learning syle preferences at IAIN Ternate. Learning style preferences. Khalil, A., & Sabir, M. (2019). Saudi EFL learners' perceptual learning style preferences. Larning style preperences. Khatib, S. A., & Ghosheh, S. K. (2013). Perceptual learning style preferences in relation to gender, academic achievement and field of study among a sample of UAE college students. Learning style preferences. Moo, M., & Eamoraphan, S. (2016). A corelational-comparative study of students' perceptual learning style preferences in learning English as a foreign LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 24, No. 1, October 2021 413 language and their academic achievement in the cetera academic program for English at Myanmar Institute of Technology. Learning Style Preferences. Nawir, E. (2016). Learning styles and English achievement of agriculture and livestock faculty students at Language Center of Suska Islamic State University Riau. Nguyen, J. (2021, April 03). group learning style. Retrieved from Prezi.com: https://prezi.com/l8wd7zti7l6o/group-learning- style/?frame=78a75090fa55d54d4d094396599e5362ddc23449 Nosratiniah, M., & Soleimannejad, A. (2016). Perceptual learning styles and critical thinking: Inspecting the association among EFl learners . Perceptual learning styles. Reid, J. M. (1987). The Learning Style Preferences of ESL Students. 87-110. Rhouma, W. B. (2016). Perceptual learning styles preferences and academic achievement . Roell, K. (2021, April 03). The kinesthetic learning style: Traits and study strategies. Retrieved from Thoughtco.com: https://www.thoughtco.com/the- kinesthetic-learning-style-3212046 Salaria, N. (2012). Meaning of the term-descriptive survey research method. STG, H. N. (2017). Students' preference of language learning style in English classroom. Darussalam: Ar-raniry State Islamic University. Sugiyono. (2013). Metode penelitian pendidikan (Pendekatan kuantitati, kualitatif dan R&D). Bandung: Alfabeta. __________. (2018). Metode penelitian pendidikan (Pendekatan kuantitatif, kualitatif dan R&D). Bandung: Alfabeta. Team, T. C. (2020). How knowing your learning style can help you. Retrieved Juni 5, 2020, from The Classroom: https://www.theclassroom.com/knowing- learning-style-can-659372.html