Analisis Deskriptif Hasil Belajar Pembelajaran Tatap Muka dan Pembelajaran Online Menurut Gaya Belajar Mahasiswa
Each higher education institution has a choice of learning models to be held, namely face-to-face learning, online learning, and blended learning. Face-to-face and online learning models have advantages and disadvantages in supporting student learning styles. Student learning styles not only represent what students like in learning, but also affect student learning outcomes. So it is not surprising, until now there is still a crossing of opinion in the achievement of learning, face-to-face learning or online learning that provides better results. This study provides an answer solution to learning English, whether face-to-face learning or online learning that is superior in cognitive learning outcomes according to student learning styles. The results of the descriptive analysis in this study concluded that students with auditory and visual learning styles taught with online learning models had higher average learning outcomes compared to students taught with face-to-face learning models; there is no difference in the average value of kinesthetic student learning outcomes between students who are taught by face-to-face learning with students who are taught by online learning; and in general the results of descriptive analysis show that online learning students are more successful in achieving learning outcomes compared to face-to-face learning students in learning English.
 S. Norman, “Traditional Education and Advantages of Online Learning,” 2016.
 S. Alam and L. Jackson, “A Case Study : Are Traditional Face-To-Face Lectures Still Relevant When Teaching Engineering Courses ?,” vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 9–16, 2013.
 J. Schreurs, “E-Blended Learning for Distance Learners,” in International Conference WWW/Internet, 2003, pp. 1204–1209.
 S. E. Smaldino, D. L. Lowther, and J. D. Russell, Instructional Technology and Media for Learning. Canada: Pearson, 2008.
 A. H. Roblyer, M. D and Doering, Integrating Educational Technology in Teaching. Boston: Pearson, 2013.
 A. Liu, G. Hodgson, and W. Lord, “Innovation in Construction Education : The Role of Culture in E-learning,” Archit. Eng. Des. Manag., vol. 6, pp. 91–103, 2010.
 M. K. Clark, Tom and Barbour, “Online, Blended, and Distance Education in Schools: Building Successful Program.” Stylus Publishing, United States of America, 2015.
 M. A. Suparman, Educational Technology in distance learning. Jakarta, Indonesia: Open University, Indonesian Ministry of Education and Culture, 2014.
 M. Simonson, S. Smaldino, M. Albright, and S. Zvacek, Teaching and Learning at a Distance: Foundation of Distance Education. 2012.
 G. D. Eudoxie, “Learning Styles among Students in an Advanced Soil Management Class : Impact on Students ’ Performance,” pp. 137–144, 2011.
 A. J. A and nd M. Molenda, Educational Technology. New York: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC., 2008.
 S. Psycharis, E. Botsari, and G. Chatzarakis, “Examining the Effects of Learning Styles, Epistemic Beliefs and the Computational Experiment Methodology On Learners’ Performance Using the Easy Java,” J. Educ. Comput. Res., vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 91–118, 2014.
 W. B. Rhouma, “Perceptual Learning Styles Preferences and Academic,” vol. 09, no. 02, pp. 479–492, 2016.
 Ž. Pekić, “The Impact of Felder’s Learning Styles Index on Motivation and Adoption of Information Throught E-Learning,” vol. 6, no. December, pp. 93–100, 2016.
 O. Mantiri, “Key to Language Learning Success,” J. Arts Humanit., pp. 14–19, 2015.
 R. Sparks and L. Ganschow, “Aptitude for learning a foreign language,” pp. 90–112, 2001.
 S. Suppasetseree and N. K. Dennis, “Challenges and Issues Implementing and Integrating Educational Technology for Teaching and Learning English at a Local University in Thailand,” Int. J. Arts Sci., vol. 4, no. 24, pp. 135–142, 2011.  A. Anggrawan, A. H. Yassi, and C. Satria, “Instructional Development and Formative Evaluation of English grammar for Online Learning,” in the Third International Conference on Computational Science and Information Management, 2019, pp. 1–5.