The particular dialect or language that a person chooses to use on any occasion is called a code 851 Copyright © 2025 The Author IDEAS is licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 License Issued by English study program of IAIN Palopo IDEAS Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, Linguistics and Literature ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) Volume 13, Number 1, June 2025 pp.851 - 876 What Students Say about Grammar Learning: A Comparative Study in Online and Offline Classes Aco Zulham Faridh 1 , Zulfah Fakhruddin2 1,2Fakultas Tarbiyah, Institut Agama Islam Negeri Parepare E-mail: acozulhamfaridh@iainpare.ac.id1, zulfah@iainpare.ac.id2 Received: 2025-04-09 Accepted: 2025-05-28 DOI: 10.24256/ideas. v13i1.6369 Abstract The advancement of current instructional models, particularly in the context of online and offline classes, demands a more adaptive approach for grammar learning. This study addresses this need by comparing how students at Kresna Kampung Inggris perceive grammar learning in online and offline classes and ultimately how these perceptions can be utilized to optimize learning methods. 60 respondents-30 from the online and 30 from the offline classes-who had completed the Grammar 1 program participated in the descriptive- comparative quantitative methodology. A Likert scale questionnaire measured six perception indicators: course structure and organization, learner interaction, instructor presence, student engagement, student satisfaction, and perceived learning. Descriptive analysis showed that all indicators in the online class were rated as very positive except perceived learning in the positive category, while the offline class acquired positive categories for five indicators and very positive for the instructor presence indicator. Unexpectedly, instructor presence was the highest rating criterion in all groups, with the online class had a higher score (90.00%) than the offline session (82.27%). The findings contradict the assumption that instructor presence is greater in face-to-face learning and suggests that it can be effectively built in a well-managed online class. Furthermore, online students demonstrated higher levels of engagement, whereas offline students preferred more direct interaction in the classroom. The data met the assumptions for parametric analysis based on the Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Levene’s tests. The Independent Sample t-test revealed a substantial distinction between two groups (P=0,006), confirming the alternative hypothesis (H1) and disregarding the null hypothesis (H0). This result validates the unique characteristics of both methods that can be fully optimized. Instead than identifying a superior method, this study emphasizes improving the weaker aspects of each approach while reinforcing their strengths to create a more adaptive and context-responsive grammar learning model. http://u.lipi.go.id/1457703302 mailto:acozulhamfaridh@iainpare.ac.id1, mailto:zulfah@iainpare.ac.id2 Aco Zulham Faridh, Zulfah Fakhruddin What Students Say about Grammar Learning: A Comparative Study in Online and Offline Classes 852 Keywords: Student Perception, Grammar Learning, Method Optimization Introduction Theoretical and Practical Issues in EFL Grammar Learning Grammar learning is an essential aspect of English language education, particularly for students aiming to achieve proficiency. In terms of English as a Foreign Language (EFL), grammar learning encompasses the mastery of syntax, morphology, and sentence construction to ensure accurate and meaningful communication (Syakira et al., 2024; Pham, 2023; Alqahtani, 2022). Nowadays, technological advancements have offered students with a variety of learning alternatives, such as online and offline classes. (Singh et al., 2021). These various learning formats have sparked considerable discussion among learners and educators, particularly concerning their effectiveness in grammar learning. The integration of online and offline classes in English language instruction has opened up access to highly creative learning opportunities for students (Kashinath & Raju, 2023). With the ability to learn remotely, some students prefer online class because of their flexibility and accessibility, which allows them to learn at their own pace. Meanwhile, other students argue that offline class provides better engagement through direct interaction with instructors and peers, which encourages instant feedback and active participation. This dichotomy between online and offline learning methods has resulted in contrasting perceptions among students, but comprehensive research comparing these two methods, particularly in a non-formal education setting such as Kresna Kampung Inggris, remains limited. To contribute to this ongoing discussion, this study employs the six dimensions of perception proposed by Gray & Diloreto, (2016), as cited in Kim & Kim, (2021): Course Structure and Organization, Learner Interaction, Instructor Presence, Student Engagement, Student Satisfaction, and Perceived Learning. These dimensions will be used to compare the effectiveness of online and offline grammar classes, but also explores how these two methods can be optimized to be more effective. By understanding students' perceptions, this research is expected to provide actionable insights and recommendations to enhance the quality of grammar learning in both formats. The Context of Kresna Kampung Inggris Applying the perception framework in an actual educational context, this study was conducted at Kresna Kampung Inggris, a reputable non-formal English course institution in Pare, Kediri, which was founded in 2003. Kresna, recognized as one of the five recommended grammar courses in Kampung Inggris (Jauharotun, 2024), provides an organized curriculum divided into 9 grammar levels (Grammar 1-9), with each level lasting two weeks and containing ten meetings, available twice a month on the 10th and 25th. Kresna offers both online and offline classes. Online classes are limited to a maximum of 10 students, while IDEAS, Vol. 13, No. 1, June 2025 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 853 offline classes accommodate 20 to 30 students. The primary distinction between online and offline classes is that online learning relies on digital platforms for interaction and flexibility, whereas offline learning prioritizes direct in-person participation (Aimah et al., 2023; Utomo et al., 2023; Halim, 2022; Kuregyan & Pertsevaya, 2021). Because of the variety of instructional delivery options, Kresna is an ideal location for this study, allowing for a comparative examination of how learning approaches affect students' grammar learning experiences. Its long-standing reputation and specific focus on grammar make it an appropriate and insightful context for exploring student perceptions in non-formal education settings. Empirical insights from Previous Studies Several previous studies have explored the effectiveness of online and offline classes, highlighting mixed results. At the Veteran National Development University of East Java, 71% of 112 students reported that their online class were effective, primarily due to the implementation of appropriate approaches and media (Rini & Sawitri, 2022). Similarly, a study by Sukmawati et al., (2022) at Megarezky University, South Sulawesi, found that 73.5% of non-EFL Students agreed that online learning forms independent learning. Then, a study conducted at National University of Battambang, Cambodia stated that the simplicity and flexibility of online class make it an appealing choice for students. Some respondents thought online class tools were more successful than traditional classroom techniques, indicating that online class platforms will be used more frequently for language acquisition (Dy et al., 2024). On the other hand, a research conducted by Afifah & Fikri (2023) stated that 68.8% of 16 students at the Islamic University of Malang preferred offline learning due to ease of understanding, communication with instructors, and active participation. Of the 16 EFL students at Ibn Khaldun University who took both online and offline classes, 58% preferring offline classes, and 37.5% preferring online classes, with 4.5% favoring both (Damayanti & Rachmah, 2020). Based on research conducted on school students in Telangana, India, it was found that students prefer face-to-face (offline) English learning over online (Kashinath & Raju, 2023). These studies indicate how the approach of learning and the educational setting can have a significant impact on learners' preferences and perceived effectiveness. Research Gap and Purpose of the Study Although numerous studies have examined the effectiveness of online and offline instruction, direct comparisons regarding students' perceptions of grammar learning in both settings, particularly in non-formal institutions, are scarce. The majority of current studies only highlight the effectiveness of learning methods without considering aspects of students' perceptions comprehensively. In order to Aco Zulham Faridh, Zulfah Fakhruddin What Students Say about Grammar Learning: A Comparative Study in Online and Offline Classes 854 bridge this gap, this study investigates how the six aspects of perception proposed by Gray and Diloreto (2016), as cited in Kim and Kim (2021), can explain students' learning experiences in both ways. As a result, this study will provide more information about how these factors influence the success of grammar learning in both approaches. Based on the gap analysis, this research attempts to address the research issue that follows.: "How do online and offline students at Kresna Kampung Inggris perceive grammar learning differently, and how may these differences contribute to method optimization?" This research will identify the differences in students' perceptions of the effectiveness of grammar learning in online and offline classes and how these two methods can be optimized. The novelty of this research lies in the holistic approach in comparing the two learning methods not only in terms of effectiveness but also from the students' learning experience as well as providing recommendations for optimizing the two methods to be more effective in a non- formal context which has rarely been investigated in previous studies. This study is anticipated to have an impact on the field of education more broadly, especially in designing grammar learning methods that are more effective, adaptive, and based on student needs in both formal and non-formal environments. The findings of this research can also be a reference for policy makers and educational practitioners in developing curriculum and learning strategies that are more in line with technological developments and the needs of today's learners. Method Research Design Students' perceptions of grammar learning in online and offline classes at Kresna Kampung Inggris will be analyzed and compared in this study using descriptive-comparative quantitative method. In order to evaluate hypotheses, quantitative research relies on gathering numerical data, this study explains phenomena with numbers (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This method was chosen as it allows objective measurement of differences in perceptions through numerical data collected from questionnaires. The principal aim of this study is not only to identify differences in students’ perceptions but also to provide recommendations for optimizing both online and offline classes. Population and Sampling The population in this study are all students who have attended Grammar 1 class at Kresna Kampung Inggris, both in online and offline formats. Grammar 1 is a two-week program with ten sessions that cover two basic grammar topics: the components of language (phoneme, morpheme, word, phrase, clause, and sentence) and parts of speech. At this stage, the emphasis on parts of speech study limited to noun, pronoun, adjective, and adverb. The primary objectives of this program are to equip students with a thorough understanding of verbal and nominal sentence IDEAS, Vol. 13, No. 1, June 2025 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 855 structures in English, and to increase their accuracy in employing limiting and descriptive adjectives, which can be confusing to learners. Considering the unknowable population size and the fluctuating student enrollment every period, this study employs purposive sampling technique to ensure that the sample obtained is truly relevant to the research objectives with the criteria of students who have attended the grammar 1 class. In quantitative research, purposive sampling can be an effective strategy for tackling practical issues and advancing theoretical development (Memon et al., 2025). The sample used consisted of 60 students, with a balanced distribution between online and offline classes, namely 30 students each. The selection of this sample size is based on the availability of students who have completed the Grammar 1 class and have met the requirements for valid statistical analysis, such as normality tests and comparison tests. Data Collection and Instrument Development Data collection for this study was accomplished over two weeks, from late February to early March, utilizing an online questionnaire distributed through Google Form. Before being analyzed, the data was checked to ensure that the instrument was valid and reliable. The validity test findings indicated that all items were valid, as the estimated r value was greater than the r table. Furthermore, the reliability test findings showed that the instrument was reliable, with a Cronbach's Alpha score greater than 0.7, indicating strong internal consistency. After validation, the questionnaire was distributed to 60 students who had taken Grammar 1 at Kresna Kampung Inggris. A structured questionnaire with closed-ended statements served as the main instrument for this research. The statements were devided into six dimensions of student perceptions, namely course structure and organization, student interaction, instructor presence, student engagement, student satisfaction, and perceived learning (Gray & DiLoreto's, 2016; as cited in Kim & Kim, 2022). Each statement is scored on a Likert scale of 5, with 1 indicating strongly disagree and 5 representing strongly agree. To guarantee consistency in the interpretation of the data, the ratings for negative statements are inverted. This research also included ethical considerations. Respondents were provided detailed information about the purpose of the study and assured that their participation was voluntary, and that their responses would be kept strictly confidential and employed only for academic purposes. Data Analysis Techniques In order to further explain the quantitative analysis of students' perceptions in both online and offline grammar classes, the findings were grouped into percentage intervals, as indicated in the table, ranging from "Very Negative" to "Very Positive." Aco Zulham Faridh, Zulfah Fakhruddin What Students Say about Grammar Learning: A Comparative Study in Online and Offline Classes 856 Table 1. Criteria for respondents' response scores to the ideal score A statistical analysis will be conducted on the collected data. Descriptive statistics will be used to evaluate quantitative data from the closed-ended statements for every perception dimension. An independent sample t-test will also be employed to ascertain whether online and offline students' perceptions of grammar learning are significantly different. The normality and homogeneity tests will be performed before the t-test to make sure the data meets the required statistical assumptions. This quantitative method makes it possible to compare student perceptions in various learning environments objectively. Findings This study compares how students at Kresna Kampung Inggris perceive learning grammar in online and offline classes. The six primary indicators used to assess students' perceptions are (1) course structure and organization, (2) student interaction, (3) instructor presence, (4) student engagement, (5) student satisfaction, and (6) perceived learning. These indicators were adapted from Gray & Diloreto, (2016) as cited in Kim & Kim, (2021). 30 statements were included in a closed questionnaire that was used as an instrument to gather data. A 1–5 Likert scale was used to quantify student responses, and negative items were interpreted to ensure accurate analysis. Prior to data analysis, the validity and reliability of the questionnaire instrument were examined to ensure accuracy and consistency. The findings of the validity test indicated that every item with an r-count value higher than the r-table was deemed valid. Meanwhile, a number above 0.7 from the Cronbach's Alpha reliability test showed that the instrument is reliable. Once the validity and reliability of the instrument have been established, a normality test with Kolmogorov-Smirnov showed a significance value of 0.200 (p>0.05), so the data was considered normally distributed. Additionally, the results of the Levene's Test homogeneity test indicate that the variance of the two groups is homogeneous, with a Sig. value of 0.103 (> 0.05). The next stage is to present the research findings after making sure the data is homogeneous in variance and regularly distributed. Six primary indicators are used to measure students' perceptions of grammar learning in both online and No. Interval (%) Criteria 1 0-20 Very Negative 2 21-40 Negative 3 41-60 Neutral 4 61-80 Positive 5 81-100 Very Positive IDEAS, Vol. 13, No. 1, June 2025 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 857 offline classes, and the results of this descriptive analysis will be covered in the section that follows. Online Class Description Students' perceptions of the online grammar class were generally very positive across all six indicators, according to descriptive data. The findings are summarized in the table below: Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of Online Class Indicator Actua l Score Mean Std. Dev . Idea l Scor e Percentage Category X1 - Course Structure and Organization 659 21.97 2.798 750 87.87% Very Positive X2 - Learner Interaction 611 20.37 2.684 750 81.47% Very Positive X3 - Instructor Presence 675 22.50 2.177 750 90.00% Very Positive X4 – Student Engagement 648 21.60 2.500 750 86.40% Very Positive X5 – Student Satisfaction 643 21.43 3.002 750 85.73% Very Positive X6 – Perceived Learning 604 20.13 2.330 750 80.53% Positive Descriptive statistical test findings demonstrate that students have very positive perceptions of online grammar learning in practically all indicators. In spite of the online format, the instructor's presence is still felt powerfully, as seen by the indicator with the highest score, Instructor Presence (90.00%). This shows how well the online class used digital media to create instructional connections. With percentages above 81%, four more indicators, course structure and organization, student interaction, engagement, and satisfaction, also fit into the very positive category. Nonetheless, with a percentage score of 80.53%, Perceived Learning is the only indicator in the positive category, reflecting that although students' perceptions of the online learning experience are generally highly favorable, their views of the learning outcomes are slightly lower than the other aspects. Aco Zulham Faridh, Zulfah Fakhruddin What Students Say about Grammar Learning: A Comparative Study in Online and Offline Classes 858 Offline Class Description Descriptive statistics from the offline grammar classes revealed that students had generally positive perception. The table below illustrates the findings: Table 3. Descriptive Statistics of Offline Class Indicator Actua l Score Mean Std. Dev . Idea l Scor e Percentage Category X1 - Course Structure and Organization 599 19.97 3.222 750 79.87% Positive X2 - Learner Interaction 578 19.27 2.924 750 77.07% Positive X3 - Instructor Presence 617 20.57 3.213 750 82.27% Very Positive X4 – Student Engagement 580 19.33 3.198 750 77.33% Positive X5 – Student Satisfaction 587 19.57 3.036 750 78.27% Positive X6 – Perceived Learning 583 19.43 2.812 750 77.73% Positive In the offline class, the descriptive statistical test results reveal that the majority of the indicators are in the positive category, indicating that offline grammar learning still provides an effective learning experience. Instructor Presence is the only indicator in the very positive category (82.27%), confirming that face-to-face interaction is still the primary advantage in offline learning. Meanwhile, other measures such as course structure and organization, student interaction, engagement, satisfaction, and perceived learning ranged between 77% and 79%, demonstrating that students give positive appreciation and show that these aspects are quite effective in the context of offline learning. Online Vs Offline Grammar Classes The student perceptions of grammar instruction in online and offline classes were compared using an independent t-test to see if there were any notable differences. The statistical analysis's findings are displayed in Table 4. IDEAS, Vol. 13, No. 1, June 2025 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 859 Table 4. Independent Sample T-test Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means F Sig. t df Sig. (2- tailed ) Mean Differenc e Std. Error Differenc e 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lowe r Upper TOTAL_ PERSEPSI Equal varianc es assum ed 2.74 7 .10 3 2.82 9 58 .006 9.867 3.488 2.884 16.84 9 Equal varianc es not assum ed 2.82 9 54.58 1 .007 9.867 3.488 2.875 16.85 8 The Levene test findings show that the variances of the two groups are homogenous (equal variances assumed), with a value of F = 2.747 with Sig. = 0.103 (> 0.05). As a result, the first line (equal variances assumed) is used to interpret the t-test results. With df = 58 and a significance level of 0.05 (α = 5%), the t-table value is 2.021, according to the t distribution table. Based on the analysis's findings, t- count = 2.829 is higher than t-table = 2.021 (2.829 > 2.021). Since t-count exceeds t-table, the null hypothesis (H₀) is disproved, which means that there is a significant difference between students' perceptions in online and offline classes towards learning grammar. The mean difference of 9.867 reflects this discrepancy and shows that students' perceptions of online and offline grammar classes are not the same on average. Furthermore, the difference in mean perception between the two groups is probably within the 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference (2,884 - 16,849). To determine which aspects, contribute the most to the differences, an exploration of the six perception indicators was performed. Table 5 provides a descriptive comparison. Aco Zulham Faridh, Zulfah Fakhruddin What Students Say about Grammar Learning: A Comparative Study in Online and Offline Classes 860 Table 5. Descriptive Comparison of Students' Perceptions Indicator Online Class (%) Offline Class (%) Difference (%) X1 - Course Structure and Organization 87.87% 79.87% 8.00% X2 - Learner Interaction 81.47% 77.07% 4.40% X3 - Instructor Presence 90.00% 82.27% 7.73% X4 – Student Engagement 86.40% 77.33% 9.07% X5 – Student Satisfaction 85.73% 78.27% 7.46% X6 – Perceived Learning 80.53% 77.73% 2.80% The data presented above is more clearly illustrated in the bar chart (Figure 1), which emphasizes the visual differences across all variables. Figure 1. Bar Chart of Students' Perception in Grammar Learning: Online vs Offline The bar chart visualization highlights that, in comparison to the offline class, the online grammar class consistently achieved superior percentage values across all student perception indicators. With a difference of 9.07%, Indicator X4 (Student Engagement) exhibits the largest variation, followed by X1 (Course Structure and Organization) and X3 (Instructor Presence), all of which differ by more than 7.50%. Regardless of the delivery method, students from both groups had a fairly balanced perception of their achievement of grammatical learning outcomes, as seen by the Students' Perception Comparison in Online and Offline Grammar Classes 100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 Online Class 87.87% 81.47% 90.00% 86.40% 85.73% 80.53% Offline Class 79.87% 77.07% 82.27% 77.33% 78.27% 77.73% 0.00% Pe rc en ta ge IDEAS, Vol. 13, No. 1, June 2025 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 861 smallest difference in indicator X6 (Perceived Learning), which is 2.80%. The two learning groups' perceptual levels differ significantly, as seen by the variance of the difference between 2.80% and 9.07%. Further analysis of the factors causing this difference will be discussed in the Discussion section. Discussion Critical Insights into Six Indicators of Student Perception: Emphasizing Unexpected Findings This study offers fascinating insights into how students view learning grammar in online and offline classroom settings. Although there are notable differences in a few measures, students generally have positive perceptions about both teaching approaches. The findings indicate that students' perceptions of online class is very positive in terms of course structure and organization, learner interaction, student engagement, and student satisfaction, whereas all four indicators are positive in offline classes. In terms of instructor presence, both types of classes have the same perception, which is very positive, and students' perceptions in the perceived learning indicator, both types of classes are positive. A substantial difference between the two approaches was also revealed by the independent samples t-test results, confirming that the grammar learning experiences in online and offline sessions cannot be easily equated. The six indicators were critically analyzed to gain a deeper understanding of the reasons behind these findings and how these two methods can be effectively optimized. 1. Course Structure and Organization The results revealed that students' perception of the course structure and organization were more favorable in the online class than in the offline class with a difference of 8.00%. This finding is particularly interesting because online classes are often criticized for having limited direct control. However, the online class structure that provides access to digital materials, learning videos, and flexible schedules actually gives students more control over their learning flow. This is reinforced by one respondent who stated: “The advantage is in terms of simple online material, then instructors who are easy to understand when explaining and assisted by active interaction in class so that I as a student in class can minimize the level of difficulty.” This is consistent with the findings of Rifiyanti, (2020), who stated that the flexibility and accessibility of online class materials allow students to absorb and comprehend the material presented by lecturer well, and further strengthened by Chamavit & Suriyatham, (2024), who claimed that the primary benefits of online Aco Zulham Faridh, Zulfah Fakhruddin What Students Say about Grammar Learning: A Comparative Study in Online and Offline Classes 862 class for students are flexibility and more individual attention. Meanwhile, offline classes are still positively perceived by students, although the percentage score is lower. This can be ascribed to direct interaction, which allows for more purposeful learning and real-time material customization. Sholikhah & Saefullah, (2024), observed that teachers' interaction tactics, such as praise, guidance, and questions, encourage students to actively participate in grammar instruction. But if we look from another perspective, although immediate interaction contributes to provide a clear structure, some students may feel limited in their exploration space and learning speed. The research by Kurniatillah et al., (2022), supports the aforementioned claim. In offline class, teaching strategies such as lecturing, direct instruction, and providing constructive feedback frequently place the teacher at the center of the class rhythm. Therefore, both online and offline learning environments have benefits and drawbacks that impact how students view the course structure and organization. 2. Learner Interaction In both online and offline settings, student interaction is one of the crucial aspects in successful learning. With a difference of 4.40%, the online class students' perception is in the very positive category, while in offline class, this indicator is in the positive range. This discovery is surprising as in theory direct contact without technology barrier makes offline interaction in class better. However, in the modern learning context, interaction is no longer limited to physical presence alone. Marlina & Sulastri, (2023), highlighted the fact that online grammar learning via online platforms mediated by various activities and fascinating features support learners to be more motivated in online class. Based on the outcomes of the previous study, it is evident that numerous technological features, including discussion forums, interactive chats, and digital collaborative exercises may enhance student involvement and interaction in online class. On the other hand, although offline class facilitates direct interaction, certain aspects may hinder students' participation equally. According to Muhayyang et al., (2023), affective issues such as nervousness, lack of confidence, and fear of making mistakes might cause students to remain silent in class due to emotional obstacles rather than cognitive limitations. Furthermore, the teacher-centered learning model has the potential to inhibit student interaction. This suggests that, despite the initial assumption that student interaction will be stronger in offline sessions, the distribution of participation among students is not always optimal. Therefore, these differences in interaction characteristics are factors that shape students' perceptions of grammar learning in both formats. IDEAS, Vol. 13, No. 1, June 2025 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 863 3. Instructor Presence Unexpected findings were found in this indicator, with both online and offline classes scoring highly. This indicator was the only one that received a very positive category in the offline class, despite the fact that the online class scored higher by a difference of 7.73%. Because it contradicts the widely held assumption that instructor presence is greater in offline class than in online ones, this finding is particularly captivating. In line with Glazier & Harris, (2021)’s opinion that face-to- face class allowed instructors to connect more easily with their students. But the fact that students receive greater and direct instructor feedback in online class may be one reason for the high favorable impressions of these learning environments. Even though online programs don't involve in-person sessions, instructors can concentrate more on offering more focused one-on-one guidance when there are fewer students. Small class sizes allow instructors to provide immediate and detailed feedback to online students (Watson et al., 2023). Conversely, although not as strong as in online classes, interactions between the lecturer and students were still highly appreciated in offline settings. The larger class dynamics, where the instructor must divide their attention among more pupils at once, could be the cause of this. According to Olurotimi & Nike, (2021), large class sizes may influence the effectiveness of instructor-student interactions because teachers must divide their attention among many students, decreasing the depth of individualized interactions. This is consistent with Yusuf et al., (2016)'s findings, who showed that large classrooms negatively affect students' motivation, concentration, and participation in class. In addition, Sezer et al., (2017) discovered a positive correlation between students' attention levels and class participation, implying that in large classes, where students' attention tends to decline, so does their involvement. These factors may explain why, although being very positive, the perception of instructor presence in offline class is slightly lower than in online class. But it cannot be denied that the instructor's presence in offline classes is still highly appreciated, as stated by one student: “The concepts and methods given from the instructor are very systematic, simple, the instructor is friendly which makes it easy for me personally to understand the grammar.” 4. Student Engagement The most striking findings of this study are the differences in student engagement between online and offline classes, with the difference in scores reaching 9.07%, with online class significantly superior to offline class. This finding contradicts the basic hypothesis that direct interaction in offline class would Aco Zulham Faridh, Zulfah Fakhruddin What Students Say about Grammar Learning: A Comparative Study in Online and Offline Classes 864 improve student engagement. One probable explanation for this issue is that online class provides a more comfortable and accessible learning environment. Chiu, (2022) suggested that self-determination theory (SDT) can clarify how online learning provides learners to manage their learning more independently, which strengthens their intrinsic motivation to engage more actively. As a result, online learning can alleviate the social pressure that frequently present in face-to-face learning, which may prevent students from actively participating. This result is equivalent with the findings by Pratiwi & Kurniati, (2022), when students present or offer feedback, e- learning helps individuals feel more comfortable and confident in their ability to express their ideas. Furthermore, the utilization of technological features like interactive quizzes, polling, and online platform-based discussions seem to play a substantial part in enhancing student engagement in online classes (Banat et al., 2024). On the other hand, offline class may have challenges in promoting the engaged participation of every student, even though they offer the benefit of direct engagement. Their involvement may be restricted by elements like disparities in confidence levels, some students' tendencies to participate passively in class discussions, and possibly more instructor-centered teaching methods. The employment of conventional teacher-centered learning approaches, such as lectures, leads to students becoming passive and limited in their engagement (Tholibon et al., 2022). Furthermore, students in offline sessions may concentrate more on mastering theory than actively engaging in conversation or interaction-based tasks when grammar instruction is structural and rule-oriented. These results imply that, despite variations in student engagement between online and in-person instruction, each approach has pros and cons for promoting grammar acquisition. 5. Student Satisfaction With a difference of 7.46%, online class in the very positive category has greater levels of student satisfaction with grammar learning than offline sessions in the positive category. This result suggests that online class are more capable of satisfying students' expectations regarding the caliber of grammar instruction, even in the face of varying learning styles. Zeng & Tingzeng Wang, (2021), combining asynchronous materials such as reading modules, videos, and online learning resources with interactive synchronous sessions increased student satisfaction by providing flexibility and accessibility while maintaining cognitive engagement. Flexible material access and more creative, tech-based teaching strategies are two potential contributing factors. Therefore, this aspect of satisfaction shows how well teaching works as well as how well teaching strategies suit students' preferred learning styles. IDEAS, Vol. 13, No. 1, June 2025 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 865 Meanwhile, student satisfaction in offline classes remained positive, indicating that direct involvement with the instructor is still a valuable aspect of the learning process. This is consistent with the findings of Dinh & Nguyen, 2020 and Tratnik et al., 2019, who found that face-to-face learning has advantages in terms of building social relationships and increasing instructional clarity in some contexts, albeit access to materials after class is more limited. These findings indicate that both online and offline classes have their strengths, and adaptive instructional strategies play an essential role in addressing the needs of students with varied learning styles. 6. Perceived Learning The findings demonstrate that both face-to-face and virtual learning environments contribute positively to students' grammar comprehension, with a not-so-significant difference of 2.80%. This disparity indicates that both approaches are still successful in assisting students in comprehending the grammar content, even though they differ in how they are taught. This suggests that the method and structure of instruction in both kinds of classrooms can effectively satisfy the learning needs of the students. Kemp, (2020) asserts that in face-to-face learning, students cherish the opportunity to ask questions and review content through live discussion, which helps to improve their understanding of grammar concepts. In line with this, students are more engaged in and grasp the material in face-to-face sessions due to close proximity with lecturers and fellow students (Damayanti & Rachmah, 2020). Even though online courses had higher scores, this does not always mean that online learning is superior. Instead, it can be ascribed to a number of factors, including the use of technology that facilitates individual understanding, repeating class recordings, and free access to materials. (Dy et al., 2024) showed that online grammar instruction can improve students' comprehension of complex grammatical concepts and enhance their confidence in using English. This is a result of the highly valued interaction in the online classroom, where students' perceptions of their learning outcomes are greatly influenced by course structure, instructor expertise, and student motivation (Baber, 2020). Therefore, each strategy has advantages that complement one another in supporting students' grammar comprehension. Optimizing Grammar Instruction Across Formats An analysis of the six grammar learning indicators confirms that both offline and online approaches have benefits and drawbacks. To optimize grammar instruction, it is crucial to identify strategies that not only address the weaknesses of each method but also capitalize on their respective strengths. Fadhilah et al. (2021) emphasize the necessity of an adaptable and contextual approach in grammar learning. As a result, optimization strategies that account for the unique Aco Zulham Faridh, Zulfah Fakhruddin What Students Say about Grammar Learning: A Comparative Study in Online and Offline Classes 866 characteristics of each learning format must be developed in order to improve students' grammar understanding holistically. 1. Course Structure and Organization To optimize the structure and organization of grammar learning, online classes can enhance the accessibility of resources through the systematic use of Learning Management Systems (LMS). According to Albrahim, (2020), modular material structure in an LMS, such as digital syllabus, grammar learning videos, and topic-based activities, is essential for clarifying students' learning paths and strengthening concept understanding. The use of platforms such as Google Classroom or Moodle allows students to access the syllabus, grammar explanation videos, and topic-based exercises flexibly and repeatedly. This strategy clarifies the learning flow and helps students build their understanding of grammar gradually. This is evidenced by Cahya Komara's, (2021) research, which found that using a Learning Management System (Moodle) is extremely beneficial for teaching English grammar. Conversely, for offline classes, the learning structure can be reinforced by adopting a blended strategy that integrates face-to-face teaching with web-based learning (Anthony et al., 2022), for example, by offering digital handouts that can be accessed again. The integration of digital teaching resources with discussion-based classroom activities has been observed to improve students' involvement in mastering complicated topics like grammar. Isakovna's, (2024) research validates the previous statement, these technology tools not only engage students in a more immersive and dynamic learning experience, but they also adapt to a variety of learning styles and speeds, strengthening the overall effectiveness of language instruction. Therefore, in order to maximize course structure and organization, both online and offline learning must encourage flexibility of access and clarity of material flow. 2. Learner Interaction Student interaction in grammar learning can be improved by employing teaching strategies that are appropriate the format. To optimize student interaction in online grammar learning, interactive tools such as chat rooms, polls, and breakout rooms have been proven to increase students' active participation. According to (Wilkins et al., 2023), breakout rooms stimulate student interaction, which may contribute to increased engagement and collaboration. To further maximize interaction, the implementation of collaborative learning strategies in online grammar learning has been shown to promote active discussion and student interaction. This is clearly stated in Ariani & Valiantien, (2022) research, collaborative learning encourages student involvement and IDEAS, Vol. 13, No. 1, June 2025 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 867 interaction in online grammar classes. Meanwhile, peer tutoring techniques, in which more experienced students assist friends who struggle with grammar, and more flexible small group discussions can both improve interaction in offline sessions. Peer tutoring programs for grammar could assist students in becoming more proficient, studying more closely, and comprehending more (Paskarena & Mukti, 2024). This method preserves the benefits of each learning style while improving student participation in both approaches. 3. Instructor Presence Various strategies can be used to optimize instructor presence in both learning methods. The instructor presence is highly appreciated in online class, hence increasing the personal feedback strategy has a significant impact on students' perceptions of the instructor's presence. This aligns with studies from Morrison & Jacobsen, (2023), timely and personalized feedback from the teacher is essential for developing a teaching presence that promotes effective student learning. Instructors may maximize the most of their online presence by holding individual consultations and conducting frequent check-ins, such more organized Q&A sessions, to guarantee real- time interaction with students. Questions can also be discussed outside of class hours with feedback in the form of voice or video recordings. Meanwhile, in the context of offline grammar learning, particularly in classes with a high number of students, there are frequently issues relating to the absence of instructor presence, which is felt by students. To address this issue, a scaffolding technique based on small peer groups can be used, where students are separated into small groups to gradually discuss and complete guided grammar problems. This method enables the instructor to more equitably distribute support, increase social contact, and promote students' learning independence. This approach allows the instructor to distribute support more evenly, strengthen social interaction, and encourage students' learning independence. Students will participate more actively in class activities if the instructor is able to provide appropriate scaffolding (Syamsidar & Baa, 2024). Thus, the effectiveness of instructor presence in both learning methods can be strengthened. 4. Student Engagement More adaptive strategies are required to maximize student engagement in both learning methods. In online classes, even when high engagement has been attained, it is important to make sure that the interaction involves deep cognitive engagement, not just a passive Aco Zulham Faridh, Zulfah Fakhruddin What Students Say about Grammar Learning: A Comparative Study in Online and Offline Classes 868 response to digital features. For instance, instructors can incorporate discussion sessions based on grammar error analysis or short student presentation sessions to increase active engagement. This is validated by Lasekan's et al., (2024) study findings, it is advised that teachers give top priority to delivering high-quality lessons and implementing instructional strategies that encourage active engagement in the classroom. For example, implementing grammatical Error Analysis Discussions, in which students analyze and correct practical instances of grammatical mistakes using a synchronous or asynchronous platform, may encourage more meaningful engagement. On the other hand, techniques like the think-pair-share method are used in offline classes. By using this method, all students are given the chance to actively participate and get a deeper comprehension of the grammar topics being taught. This is supported by a study by Ferna´ndez et al., (2023), 50% of respondents agreed and 41% strongly agreed that the Think Pair Share method is a useful tool for teaching, due to the fact that this approach can improve student response and engagement. This method encourages all students to participate, including those who are often passive. Because each student has a chance to engage in small groups, more voices are included in the discussion (Syafii, 2018). These approaches can help both online and traditional classrooms better sustain and even boost student participation. 5. Student Satisfaction To achieve the greatest student satisfaction with grammar learning in both online and offline sessions, a student-centered strategy that incorporates active learning and authentic assessment is crucial. Student- Centered Learning (SCL) emphasizes offering students autonomy, empowering them to actively improve their grammatical understanding. This has proven to be beneficial in enhancing student satisfaction, as SCL allows for creativity and personal reflection in the learning process (Diyessa & Woldearegawie, 2025). Students are offered the opportunity to brainstorm together to analyze grammar errors in actual texts, either through small group discussions in face-to-face classes or online platforms, which promotes active participation and better understanding. Furthermore, the integration of Active Learning Strategies in grammar instruction may enhance student satisfaction (Seemanath & Watanapokakul, 2024), by allowing them to participate directly in a variety of activities that focus on the practical application of grammar. Students, for example, can learn to provide insightful feedback on grammar mistakes through peer review or group discussion. The above statement is in line with the opinion of one respondent: IDEAS, Vol. 13, No. 1, June 2025 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 869 “The method is actually appropriate. Perhaps we can add activities such as feedback activities after class so that the instructor can find out how far the students understand the material that has been delivered.” On the other hand, authentic assessment has implications in improving student satisfaction. Authentic assessment in grammar learning enables students to employ grammar in real-world settings such as portfolio creation, role play, debates, and oral presentations (Nanyinza et al., 2024). Authentic assessment optimizes student satisfaction by providing real meaning to learning materials and improving motivation and engagement. By integrating SCL, Active Learning, and Authentic Assessment, grammar learning can be more effective and increase student satisfaction in both online and offline classes. 6. Perceived Learning In order to optimize both approaches, online class might emphasize the reflective segment of learning more, for example, by doing more Q&A sessions or quizzes to make sure students comprehend the content and can apply it properly. Using the Quizzing Collaborative Learning Strategy to teach grammar can improve students' performance. It was demonstrated by the student’s grammar test results (Taka, 2022). This is in line with the opinion of Permatasari & Sumaryati, (2024), who stated that digital quizzes and immediate feedback are essential for improving online grammar courses. In terms of offline classes, they can use techniques like the flipped classroom, in which students have access to the content prior to the in- person meeting, allowing for more in-depth discussions and exercises during the class. The Flipped Classroom Strategy has supported students enhance their mastery of English grammar. It not only helps students but also educators to be more creative and create an improved atmosphere for learning (Fadhilah et al., 2021). With the proper methodology, both approaches can be continuously improved without being classified as more or less effective. Implications This research reflects substantial implications for the development of grammar curriculum in diverse formats. The findings indicate that course structure flexibility, active instructor presence, and student engagement are significant elements in building a positive grammar learning experience. consequently, grammar curriculum design must adhere to the Student-Centered Learning (SCL) Aco Zulham Faridh, Zulfah Fakhruddin What Students Say about Grammar Learning: A Comparative Study in Online and Offline Classes 870 principle by encouraging the use of active learning strategies and leveraging technology to enhance material accessibility and student interaction, as the ideal curriculum not only prioritizes linguistic rule mastery but also encourages student involvement. These findings highlight the need for educators to adopt adaptive teaching practices, both in the use of technology in the online classroom and in the management of face-to-face class dynamics. Instructors are supposed to provide a learning environment that encourages active exploration of grammar, such as problem-based discussions, grammatical consultation sessions, or the use of authentic assessments that reflect grammar application in real-world scenarios. From the students' side, this research implies that success in mastering grammar does not only depend on the learning format, but on their own active involvement. Students need to engage an active role in the learning process by using a variety of learning tools, participating in discussion forums, and incorporating grammar into everyday language activities. Thus, from the standpoints of curriculum, educators, and students, learning grammar today demands a more integrated, collaborative, and contextual approach to optimize learning satisfaction and effectiveness. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research This study has various limitations that should be identified when evaluating the findings. I nitially, this study's results is purely based on students' perceptions, therefore it does not reflect actual grammatical mastery performance. In addition, because the research context is limited to a single language learning center in Indonesia, Kresna Kampung Inggris, the findings cannot be generalized to the entire population of grammar learners. Furthermore, this study focuses solely on one class level, Grammar 1, without taking into account the differences between advanced levels, which may provide a distinct viewpoint on the grammar learning experience. Last but not least, because this research technique is based on quantitative research methods, it has not provided comprehensive qualitative data that can help us better comprehend students' experiences. Based on the findings of this study, new lines of exploration present captivating prospects. One of them is to investigate deeper into the phenomenon of unexpected findings, such as the high perception of student interaction in online classes, using more sophisticated research instruments, such as a combination of questionnaires, in-depth interviews, and structured observations. This technique may provide an innovative perspective of the dynamics of digital engagement in grammar acquisition. Furthermore, the learning optimization suggestions developed in this study can be observed in other language learning contexts, as well as in different institutions, to increase the generalizability and applicability of grammar learning strategies in both online and offline formats. IDEAS, Vol. 13, No. 1, June 2025 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 871 Conclusion The research found that pupil perceptions of grammar learning in online and offline classes varied but complementary characteristics. The effectiveness of the digital framework, the flexibility of access, and the excellent integration of technology in controlling the learning experience are all demonstrated by the very positive results that online class shows in almost all learning indicators. In contrast, offline class demonstrated a strong instructor appearance, demonstrating the value of direct communication and emotional bonding in face-to-face instruction. The results of this study are not intended to determine which approach is better. However, they do support the idea that both approaches have the potential to be fully optimized to enhance the quality of the learning experience, both by enhancing elements that are currently suboptimal and supporting those that are already effective. References Afifah, A., & Fikri, D. (2023). The Effectiveness of Offline and Online Classes in Language Learning at Universities Majoring in English Education. Ethical Lingua: Journal of Language Teaching and Literature, 10(2), 270–280. https://doi.org/10.30605/25409190.638 Aimah, S., Darwis, D., Meng, O. C., Purwanto, B., & Ifadah, M. (2023). Do You Prefer Online Learning to Offline Learning? EFL Students’ Voices (Vol. 1). Atlantis Press SARL. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-078-7_30 Albrahim, F. A. (2020). Online Teaching Skills and Competencies. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/EJ1239983 Alqahtani, A. (2022). Review and Analysis of Theories Underlying Grammar Teaching Methodologies. Arab World English Journal, 13(4), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol13no4.6 Anthony, B., Kamaludin, A., Romli, A., Raffei, A. F. M., Phon, D. N. A. L. E., Abdullah, A., & Ming, G. L. (2022). Blended Learning Adoption and Implementation in Higher Education: A Theoretical and Systematic Review. In Technology, Knowledge and Learning (Vol. 27, Issue 2). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09477-z Ariani, S., & Valiantien, N. M. (2022). Collaborative Learning for Enhancing Student Academic Achievement in Online Grammar Class: an Experimental Study. Journal of English as A Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 2(1), 50–58. https://doi.org/10.31098/jefltr.v2i1.841 Baber, H. (2020). Determinants of students’ perceived learning outcome and satisfaction in online learning during the pandemic of COVID19. Journal of Education and E-Learning Research, 7(3), 285–292. https://doi.org/10.20448/JOURNAL.509.2020.73.285.292 Aco Zulham Faridh, Zulfah Fakhruddin What Students Say about Grammar Learning: A Comparative Study in Online and Offline Classes 872 Banat, A., Wahyuni, E., Erwin, E., Siti Aisyah Hanim, S. A., & Mudinillah, A. (2024). Impact of Using Online Learning Platforms on Student Engagement. Journal Emerging Technologies in Education, 2(1), 110–121. https://doi.org/10.70177/jete.v2i1.800 Cahya Komara, A. N. A. (2021). The Use of Learning Management System (Moodle) for Teaching Students’ English Grammar. LLTC 2021: Language Learning- Teaching, Linguistics, Literature in Local and Universal Context, 1–11. Chamavit, A., & Suriyatham, V. (2024). Online English Grammar Instruction at a Thai University during the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Exploratory Study. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 17(2), 745– 765. Chiu, T. K. F. (2022). Applying the self-determination theory (SDT) to explain student engagement in online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(S1), S14–S30. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1891998 Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. In Writing Center Talk over Time (Fifth Edit). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429469237-3 Damayanti, F. L., & Rachmah, N. (2020). Effectiveness of Online vs Offline classes for EFL Classroom: a study case in a higher education. Journal of English Teaching, Applied Linguistics and Literatures (JETALL), 3(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.20527/jetall.v3i1.7703 Dinh, L. P., & Nguyen, T. T. (2020). Pandemic, social distancing, and social work education: students’ satisfaction with online education in Vietnam. Social Work Education, 39(8), 1074–1083. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2020.1823365 Diyessa, T. T., & Woldearegawie, A. G. (2025). Students’ Perceptions on The Advantages of Learner - Centred Approaches and Grammar Teaching Methods in Selected Secondary Schools. JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, 13(1), 18–31. Dy, D., Ly Sovann, Mork, V., Sokun, V., & Touch, S. (2024). Online Grammar Learning of Students in Bachelor of English Literature Program: A Focus on How the Learners Perceive Their Improvement. Journal of English for Specific Purposes in Indonesia, 3(2),115–124. https://doi.org/10.33369/espindonesia.v3i2.35954 Fadhilah, F., Dewi, R. S., Anasy, Z., Eviyuliwati, I., & Syauki, S. (2021). Fostering Students’ Grammatical Competence Through Flipped Classroom. IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 1(1), 64–79. https://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v1i1.20744 Ferna ndez, M., Quintana, J., Dominic, W., Darius, L., & Alexandra, W. (2023). Think IDEAS, Vol. 13, No. 1, June 2025 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 873 Pair Share Method as a Tool to Increase Student Interest and Learning Outcomes. World Psychology, 1(3), 141–159. https://doi.org/10.55849/wp.v1i3.386 Glazier, R. A., & Harris, H. S. (2021). Instructor Presence and Student Satisfaction Across Modalities: Survey Data on Student Preferences in Online and On- Campus Courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 22(3), 77–98. https://doi.org/10.19173/IRRODL.V22I3.5546 Halim, S. (2022). Students Perception towards English Online Classroom Via Zoom During the Covid-19 Pandemic. IDEAS: Journal on English Language Teaching and Learning, Linguistics and Literature, 10(1), 1017–1026. https://doi.org/10.24256/ideas.v10i1.2901 Husnaini, H., Syam, A. T., Niken, N., & Soares, A. (2024). Teachers’ Strategies in Teaching Speaking at High Schools: Obstacles and Challenges. Linguistics Initiative, 4(2), 243-262. Isakovna, J. M. (2024). Integrating Modern Technology in English Language Teaching: Innovations and Outcomes In School Education. Eurasian Science Review, 2(4), 138. Jauharotun, V. (2024). 5 Rekomendasi Tempat Kursus di Kampung Inggris Pare. IDN Times.https://www.idntimes.com/life/education/vina- jauharotun/rekomendasi-tempat-kursus-di-kampung-inggris-c1c2 Kashinath, K., & Raju, R. L. N. (2023). An Empirical Research on the Effectiveness online and Offline Classes of English Language Learning based on Student’s Perception in Telangana Schools. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science, 15(2), 40–53. https://doi.org/10.5815/ijmecs.2023.02.04 Kemp, N. (2020). University students’ perceived effort and learning in face-to-face and online classe. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 3(Special Issue 1), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2020.3.s1.14 Kuregyan, A. L., & Pertsevaya, E. A. (2021). Online english learning: main problems and some ways to solve them. Vestnik of Samara State Technical University Psychological and Pedagogical Sciences, 18(1), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.17673/vsgtu-pps.2021.1.4 Kurniatillah, R. E., Hidayat, D. N., Husna, N., & Alek. (2022). Teacher-student interaction in English classroom setting. Journal of Applied Studies in Language, 6(1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.31940/jasl.v6i1.391 Lasekan, O. A., Pachava, V., Godoy Pena, M. T., Golla, S. K., & Raje, M. S. (2024). Investigating Factors Influencing Students’ Engagement in Sustainable Online Education. Sustainability (Switzerland), 16(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020689 Marlina, N., & Sulastri, F. (2023). Eliciting Learners’ Motivation and Engagement in https://doi.org/10.24256/ideas.v10i1.2901 Aco Zulham Faridh, Zulfah Fakhruddin What Students Say about Grammar Learning: A Comparative Study in Online and Offline Classes 874 Online Learning: Voices from Grammar Class. Premise: Journal of English Education, 12(2), 472. https://doi.org/10.24127/pj.v12i2.5862 Masruddin, M., & Abduh, N. K. (2024, May). Indonesian Language Learning for Foreign Speakers Based on Luwu Culture: A Needs Analysis Study. In 4th International Conference on Linguistics and Culture (ICLC-4 2023) (pp. 75- 80). Atlantis Press. Madehang, M., Masruddin, M., & Iksan, M. (2024). Reflecting on the Implementation of Online English Learning in Islamic Higher Education: Lecturers and Students’ Perspectives. International Journal of Asian Education, 5(3), 183-197. Memon, M. A., Thurasamy, R., Ting, H., & Cheah, J. H. (2025). Purposive Sampling: a Review and Guidelines for Quantitative Research. Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling, 9(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.47263/JASEM.9(1)01 Morrison, L., & Jacobsen, M. (2023). The role of feedback in building teaching presence and student self-regulation in online learning. Social Sciences and Humanities Open, 7(1), 100503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100503 Muhayyang, M., Nasta, M., G, H., & Sakkir, G. (2023). Students’ Affective Silence in English Classroom Interaction. Eralingua: Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Asing Dan Sastra, 7(2), 290. https://doi.org/10.26858/eralingua.v7i2.35751 Nanyinza, E., Munsaka, E., & Chiziwa, W. (2024). Pre-service teachers’ use of authentic assessment to assess secondary school English grammar. International Journal of Arts and Social Science, 7(5), 303–312. Olurotimi, B. J., & Nike, A. O. (2021). Effects of Class Size on Students’ Attitude and Academic Performance in English Language Among Secondary School Students in Ado Local Government, Ekiti State. LLT Journal: Journal on Language and Language Teaching, 24(1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v24i1.2602 Paskarena, M. I., & Mukti, T. W. P. (2024). Students’ Voices on Effective Teaching Methods for Grammar Learning in Peer Tutoring Program. Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies, 11(2), 849–875. https://doi.org/10.30762/jeels.v11i2.2904 Permatasari, S. D., & Sumaryati, S. (2024). Understanding Student Needs for Effective Online English Grammar Learning: A Quantitative Descriptive Study. Voices of English Language Education Society, 8(3), 592–604. Pham, A. T. (2023). The impact of gamified learning using Quizizz on ESL learners’ grammar achievement. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/12923 Pratiwi, T. L., & Kurniati, K. (2022). Students’ Perception Of E-Learning In English Language Education, Universitas Internasional Batam. IDEAS: Journal on https://doi.org/10.24127/pj.v12i2.5862 IDEAS, Vol. 13, No. 1, June 2025 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 875 English Language Teaching and Learning, Linguistics and Literature, 10(1), 601– 608. https://doi.org/10.24256/ideas.v10i1.2470 Rifiyanti, H. (2020). Learners’ Perceptions of Online English Learning during COVID-19 Pandemic. Scope: Journal of English Language Teaching, 5(1), 31. https://doi.org/10.30998/scope.v5i1.6719 Rini, H. P., & Sawitri, D. K. (2022). Effectiveness of Online Learning: The Learning Methods and Media. Ilomata International Journal of Social Science, 3(1), 330–339. https://doi.org/10.52728/ijss.v3i1.389 Seemanath, P., & Watanapokakul, S. (2024). Active Learning in English at Work: Assessing Effectiveness and EFL Undergraduate Student Attitudes. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 17(1), 538– 571. Sezer, A., Inel, Y., Seçkin, A. Ç., & Uluçinar, U. (2017). The relationship between attention levels and class participation of first-year students in classroom teaching departments. International Journal of Instruction, 10(2), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2017.1024a Sholikhah, Y. I., & Saefullah, H. (2024). Teacher-Students’ Classroom Interaction in Teaching Grammar with Interactive Learning Approach. JIIP - Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Pendidikan, 5(12), 5959–5963. https://doi.org/10.54371/jiip.v5i12.3942 Singh, P., Sinha, R., Koay, W. L., Teoh, K. B., Nayak, P., Lim, C. H., Dubey, A. K., Das, A., Faturrahman, I., & Aryani, D. N. (2021). A Comparative Study on Effectiveness of Online and Offline Learning in Higher Education. International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality in Asia Pasific, 4(3), 102– 114. https://doi.org/10.32535/ijthap.v4i3.1212 Sukmawati, S., Sujarwo, S., Soepriadi, D. N., & Amaliah, N. (2022). Online English Language Teaching in the Midst of Covid-19 Pandemic: Non EFL Students’ Feedback and Response. Al-Ta Lim Journal, 29(1), 62–69. https://doi.org/10.15548/jt.v29i1.732 Syafii, M. L. (2018). Using the Think-Pair-Share Strategy To Increase Students’ Active Involvement and To Improve Their Speaking Ability. IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 5(1), 61–80. https://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v5i1.7679 Syakira, S. A., Priyana, J., Lestari, A. E., Dewi, I. L., & Pujiasih, E. (2024). Enhancing Grammar Teaching in an Indonesian Senior High School Through the Use of Grammar Wheel. English Review: Journal of English Education, 12(2), 499– 508. https://doi.org/10.25134/erjee.v12i2.9350 Syamsidar, S., & Baa, S. (2024). Teachers’ Scaffolding Talk in Efl Classroom Interaction (a Case Study At Sman 17 Makassar). Klasikal : Journal of Education, Language Teaching and Science, 6(1), 128–144. Aco Zulham Faridh, Zulfah Fakhruddin What Students Say about Grammar Learning: A Comparative Study in Online and Offline Classes 876 https://doi.org/10.52208/klasikal.v6i1.1134 Taka, S. D. (2022). The Efficacy of Using Quizzing Collaborative Learning Strategy in Teaching Grammar to Senior High School Students. IDEAS: Journal on English Language Teaching and Learning, Linguistics and Literature, 10(2), 1208–1219. https://doi.org/10.24256/ideas.v10i2.3373 Tholibon, D. A., Nujid, M. M., Mokhtar, H., Rahim, J. A., Rashid, S. S., Saadon, A., Tholibon, D., & Salam, R. (2022). The factors of students’ involvement on student-centered learning method. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 11(4), 1637–1646. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v11i4.22314 Tratnik, A., Urh, M., & Jereb, E. (2019). Student satisfaction with an online and a face- to-face Business English course in a higher education context. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 56(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2017.1374875 Utomo, N., Ni’mah, D., & Rahmawati, H. (2023). Online Vs Offline Reading Classes: the Efl University Students’ Perspectives. Journal of English Language and Pedagogy, 6(1), 242–250. Watson, S., Sullivan, D. P., & Watson, K. (2023). Teaching Presence in Asynchronous Online Classes: It’s Not Just a Façade. Online Learning Journal, 27(2), 288–303. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v27i2.3231 Wilkins, S., Butt, M. M., Hazzam, J., & Marder, B. (2023). Collaborative learning in online breakout rooms: The effects of learner attributes on purposeful interpersonal interaction and perceived learning. International Journal of Educational Management, 37(2), 465–482. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM- 10- 2022-0412.Collaborative Yusuf, T., Onifade, C. A., & Bello, S. (2016). Impact of Class Size on Learning, Behavioral and General Attitudes of Students in Secondary Schools in Abeokuta, Ogun State Nigeria. Journal of Research Initiatives, 2(1), 1–18. Zeng, X., & Tingzeng Wang, S. (2021). College Student Satisfaction with Online Learning during COVID-19: A review and implications. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Perspectives in Higher Education, 6(1), 182–195.