Outdoor Learning Methods on the Ability to Write Free Poetry in Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Malay-Indonesian Study Program Students South Korea

This study aims to determine the effect of using outdoor learning methods on the ability to write free poetry in Audio Visual A1 and A2 classes of Malay-Indonesian. The method used is an experimental method of the Quasi Experimental type using two classes, namely the experimental class of 37 students which given treatment in the form of outdoor learning methods and a control class of 35 students which was not given treatment as a comparison class. The data collection technique used a poetry writing essay test and a questionnaire to find out students' responses to the outdoor learning method. Based on the results of hypothesis testing data analysis using the t test at a significant level of 0.05, a T count of 2.592 and a T table of 1.997 are obtained. Because T count is greater than T table, namely 2.592 > 1.997. It can be concluded that accept H1, reject H0, thus it can be said that there is an influence on the use of outdoor learning methods. Based on the results of hypothesis testing data analysis using the t test at a significant level of 0.05, a T count of 2.592 and a T table of 1.997 are obtained. Because T count is greater than T table, namely 2.592 > 1.997. It can be concluded that accept H1, reject H0, thus it can be said that there is an influence on the use of outdoor learning methods.the ability to write free poetry for students of the Malay-Indonesian study program Hankuk University of Foreign Studies South Korea.


INTRODUCTION
Several previous studies have been conducted on learning Indonesian as a foreign language in various countries.The findings have led to the problem of language acquisition.As with other foreign language learners, learning actions, including classroom management, influence this context.
Several previous studies have been conducted to solve the problem of classroom management in BIPA learning.For example, in Australia, BIPA teaching is carried out through an immersion approach (Riana. 2020), photo media (Utari, 2023), repetition techniques (Primasari, 2023), Think, Talk, and Write (TTW) model (Harahap & Nursaid, 2022).Nevertheless, not many studies have extensively focused on writing free poetry particularly by utilizing outdoor learning methods.The hypothesis suggests that outdoor learning activities will greatly enhance BIPA students' ability to write free verse poetry and improve their proficiency in Indonesian as a foreign language.Susilowati (2019), for instance, argues that learning Indonesian sharpens students ' sensitivity because poetry is part of literature.Through this sensitivity, students will love Indonesian and learn it quickly.
In other words, foreign language learners can quickly master their target language by learning poetry.Through reading poetry, students not only learn the target language but also improve their imagination, communication skills (Noermanzah, 2019), analytical skills (Oliveira et al., 2019), knowledge and insight, and health immunity, especially mental health (Sara, 2024).
Furthermore, Creely et al. (2022) stated that writing poetry can be an excellent tool for exploration and self-reflection (Rosenha, 2019).Through poetry, people can explore their deepest feelings and find new ways to express themselves.Through poetry, a person can assess the level of creativity of their brain (Ruizhi, 2022) Furthermore, the selection of poetry writing as a teaching medium because, in Amala (2023), it was stated that BIPA learning in Korea experienced several problems, including the position of Indonesian as a foreign language, which, of course, encouraged the emergence of several problems in mastering the target language.This statement is in line with the initial findings produced through observations and interviews by researchers with BIPA teachers at Hankuk University in Indonesian language learning for 2nd-semester undergraduate students; researchers obtained a picture that the condition of students at the time the BIPA learning process is ongoing, it is known that the results of students' free poetry still get scores below the Minimum Completion Criteria (KKM).
Several factors contribute to this issue, including limited Indonesian language proficiency and a low ability to write free verse poetry.In addition to the time-consuming nature of teaching poetry, innovation in teaching methods remains insufficient, even among Indonesian teachers instructing native speakers.Often, teachers resort to lecturing and providing examples, while encouraging students to imagine, which leaves them struggling to choose appropriate diction to express their ideas.Moreover, teachers are burdened with the task of improving students' vocabulary mastery.The lack of variety in learning environments, with students spending long hours in the same classroom, creates a monotonous atmosphere that stifles creativity.This constraint becomes even more pronounced when students, especially those learning a foreign language, struggle to express their ideas in writing, further hindering their ability to write poetry effectively.
By looking at the advantages of learning outside the classroom, both in terms of reducing student stress (Goldenberg, 2024)); its influence on physiological indices and facial expression (Li et al. l, 2024), a positive role in experiential learning, self-awareness, and socialization experiences of the participants (Yildiz, 2022), and result in a more complete and interesting learning experience than the knowledge provided in a classroom or academic environment (Costa, 2015).Searchers and teachers agree to use out-of-class learning to improve students' ability to write free poetry.
Although previous studies related to teaching poetry through outdoor learning have been conducted, such as Amailyah et all (2021), Lestari (2022), andSusanti (2023), because the subject of this study is different from previous studies focusing on native speakers while this study is on foreign speakers.Even though the methods applied are the same, the approach to foreign language acquisition theory is one of the differences in this study.In this case, the learning target is not only for students to be able to write poetry but also for students to master Indonesian as a foreign language.
Based on the background above, this study aims to improve the ability to write free poetry in BIPA students at Hankuk University through out-of-class learning.

METHODS
Roslina (2024) stated the importance of applying various research models in the multiplication of learning to enrich studies and recommendations for improving the quality of language learning, one of which is through experimental research.In this study, researchers used experimental research methods, involving two main variables.That is, while the ability of writing free poetry is the dependent variable, the independent one is outdoor learning methods.In doing so, the research design used was therefore an experimental Type Nonequivalent Control Group Design.It was done considering that experimental designs can provide internal solid validity (Charm, 2022).
The study took place across two classes of Visual A1 and A2 within Malay-Indonesian course program at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, South Korea.Researchers used an experimental class with 37 students and a control class as a comparison class of 35 students.In determining the experimental class and the control class were not chosen randomly for specific reasons (Little, 2024).
Before giving the material, the researcher initially gave the two classes a pretest with 21 questions to determine whether there was a difference before being given treatment.Furthermore, the researcher gave the same material to each of these classes, and then the researcher treated the experimental class with outdoor learning method while the control class was not given treatment (Alex et al. l, 2015).Post-tests the same as the pretest were given in each class to determine whether there were differences in the ability to write poetry between the experimental and control classes.
The sampling method employed was convenience sampling, also known as accidental sampling.This technique is based purely on coincidental, meaning that anyone who happens to meet the researchers and is deemed suitable as a data source is selected (Mena et al., 2024).In this study, the Audiovisual A class served as the experimental group, while the Audiovisual B class was used as the control group.In analysing the data, the researcher implemented the t test at a significant level of 0.05, by comparing the score of pre-tests and that of post-test between the experimental class and control class.Then, for the sake of more reliable data analysis, we also took into account the distribution of control class between pre-test and post-test.

Data Description
The data described is obtained from filling out tests using the developed instruments.The data is presented in a frequency distribution table and in graphical form to provide an overview of the size of data concentration and distribution.
Based The data from the frequency distribution table is then presented in histogram graphs and ogive graphs.The form of data presentation describes statistical data's ups and downs.The presentation of this data is easy for readers to understand with the data obtained in the control class as follows: data range 39.5 -45.5 for eight students, data range 45.5 -51.5 for five students, data range 51.5 -57, 5 as many as ten students, the data range is 57.5 -63.5 as many as six students, 63.5 -69.5 as many as four students, 69.5 -75.5 as many as two students and the data range is 75.5 -81.5 as many as two students.
Based on the results of the control class post-test in the Malay-Indonesian Study Program, The data obtained from the respondents were as follows: The lowest post-test score obtained in the control class was 53, and the highest score was 93.Students who scored 53-58 were four students, 59-64 were six students, 65-70 were ten students, seven students scored 71-76, 4 students scored 77-82, 2 students scored 83-88, and 2 students scored 89-94.For more details, see the frequency distribution table below: From the frequency distribution table, the data is then presented in the form of a histogram graph.The form of data presentation describes statistical data's ups and downs.The presentation of this data is easy for readers to understand with the data obtained in the control class as follows: data range 52.5 -58.5 for four students, data range 58.5 -64.5 for six students, data range 64.5 -70, 5 as many as ten students, data range 70.5 -76.5 as many as seven students, 76.5 -82.5 as many as four students, 82.5 -88.5 as many as two students and data range 88.5 -94.5 as many as two students.

Research & Discussion 1. Pre-test Control Class and Experimental Class
Based on the research findings above.As shown in the distribution table for the pretest frequency of the control class, the highest frequency is located in the 52-57 interval of 27.03%, with an average value obtained in the control class of 55.63, a frequency above the average value of 37.84%, while the frequency is below the average value of 35.13%.
In the pretest frequency distribution table for the experimental class, the highest frequency lies in the 52-57 interval of 27.03%, with an average value obtained in the experimental class of 56.12, a frequency above the average value of 40.54%, while frequency below the average value of 32.43%.For more details, see the table below: Based on the table above, the differences between the two classes can be seen.The highest percentage of frequency in the control class and the same experimental class is equal to 27.03%; the value above the average for the control class gets a percentage of 37.84%, while in the experimental class, it is higher by 40.54%, the value is below average -the average for the control class is 35.13%.
In comparison, the value below the average for the experimental class is only 32.43%.So, it can be seen that the values in the control class are slightly lower.The difference is in the values above the average and below the average.
The histogram graph in the description above shows that the histogram pretest graph of the highest control class graph is 51.5 for ten respondents, the highest value is 75.5 for two respondents, and the lowest value is 39.5 for eight respondents.
In the experimental class's pre-test histogram graph, the highest graph lies at 51.5 for ten respondents, the highest score is 75.5 for one respondent, and the lowest is 39.5 for seven respondents.More details can be seen in the graph below: The differences between the two classes can be seen in the graph.The difference is only one (1) difference in the highest and lowest values, while the highest frequency is the same, namely ten respondents.2.Posttest control class and experimental class.
For the distribution of posttest frequency in the control class, the highest frequency is located in the 65-70 interval of 28.57%, with an average value obtained in the control class of 70.07.The frequency above the average value is 42.86%, while the frequency below the average value is 28.57%.
In the posttest frequency distribution table for the experimental class, the highest frequency lies in the 71-76 interval of 30.55%, with an average value obtained in the experimental class of 75.67, a frequency above the average value of 44.45%, while the frequency below the average value of 25%.

Post-Test Control Class and Experimental Class
If, at the time of the pretest, the highest frequency is the same in the interval 52-57.Meanwhile, during the post-test, the highest frequency in the control and experimental classes was at different intervals.Namely in the control class at intervals of 65-70 with an average value of 70.07, while the highest value in the experimental class lies in the interval 71-76 with an average value of 75.67, the value above the average for the control class obtains a percentage namely 42.86%.In contrast, in the experimental class, it was higher, namely 44.45%; the value below the average for the control class was 28.57%.In comparison, the value below the average for the experimental class only got 25%.So, it can be seen that the values in the control class are lower.The difference is in the location of the interval, highest frequency, average value, While the histogram graph in the above description can be seen, the posttest histogram graph of the highest control class is located in the interval 64.5 -70.5 by ten respondents.The highest value is 89.5 -94.5 by 2 respondents, while the lowest is 52, 5 -58.5 by as many as 4 respondents.
In the posttest frequency distribution table for the experimental class, the highest frequency lies in the 71-76 interval of 30.55%, with an average value obtained in the experimental class of 75.67, a frequency above the average value of 44.45%, while the frequency below the average value of 25%.For more details, see the table below: If, at the time of the pretest, the highest frequency is the same in the interval 52-57.Meanwhile, during the post-test, the highest frequency in the control and experimental classes was at different intervals.Namely in the control class at intervals of 65-70 with an average value of 70.07, while the highest value in the experimental class lies in the interval 71-76 with an average value of 75.67, the value above the average for the control class obtains a percentage namely 42.86%.In contrast, in the experimental class, it was higher, namely 44.45%; the value below the average for the control class was 28.57%.In comparison, the value below the average for the experimental class only got 25%.So, the values in the control class are lower.The difference is in the location of the interval, highest frequency, and average value.
While the histogram graph in the above description can be seen, the post-test histogram graph of the highest control class is located in the interval 64.5 -70.5 by ten respondents.The highest value is 89.5 -94.5 by 2 respondents, while the lowest value is 52, 5 -58.5 by as many as 4 respondents.
On the post-test histogram graph, the highest graph of the experimental class is in the interval 70.5 -75.5 by 11 respondents, the highest value is 89.5 -94.5 by three respondents, while the lowest value is 52.5 -58.5 by two respondents.More details can be seen in the graph below: The differences between the two classes can be seen in the graph.The difference lies in the highest frequency, which is only one difference, but the location of the class intervals in the two classes is different.The control class is at intervals of 64.5 to 70.5, while the experimental class is at intervals of 70.5 to 76.5.There were only two respondents who scored the highest in the control class.In contrast, in the experimental class, there were three respondents and the lowest score for the control class was four, while the lowest score in the experimental class was only two.
Based on the pretest results of the control and experimental classes, the mean value (average) is obtained, a measure that gives an idea of the concentration of data to determine the average value of statistical data.The control class's mean value (average) is (55.63).Meanwhile, the mean value (average) in the experimental class was (56.12).
Meanwhile, during the post-test control and experimental classes, the mean value in the control class was (70.07); in the experimental class, the mean value was (75.67).For more details, see the table below: The graph above shows that the pretest data for the control class and the experimental class did not show a significant difference.This can be seen from the graph's almost equal height.This was influenced by the fact that at the time of the pretest, the researcher did not use a treatment (treatment), so the students were less motivated and less creative in writing poetry.
From the post-test data of the control class and the experimental class, it shows a significant difference.The height of the two classes can be seen from the graph.The experimental class graph is higher than the control class graph.The difference in these values was because, at the time of the post-test in the experimental class, the researcher gave treatment (outdoor learning method).In contrast, the researcher did not give treatment in the control class, so there were differences in learning outcomes between the control and experimental classes.
Furthermore, to determine whether there is an influence on the pretest data of the control and experimental classes.The researcher conducted a t-test to find out whether there were differences between the two classes.After doing the calculation, it is obtained Tcount 0.204 <Ttable 1.996.So, there is no difference in learning outcomes between the control and experimental classes.This is because the lecturer does not use the method (treatment) during the pretest.So, students are less creative when writing poetry.
Likewise, with the post-test results, the researcher conducted a t-test to determine whether there were differences between the two classes.After doing the calculations, the results obtained are Tcount 2.592 > Ttable 1.997.So, it can be concluded that there are differences in learning outcomes between the control class and the experimental class.
Apart from using tests to support the data, the researchers also used questionnaires.From the questionnaire results, all students responded positively to learning to write poetry using the outdoor learning method.This questionnaire is filled out after students study using the outdoor learning method.The component stated that the outdoor learning method was inappropriate to use in learning to write poetry; 2.77% of students agreed, 19.44% of students stated that they were neutral, and 77.77% of students stated that they did not agree.Thus, most students disagree with the statement that the outdoor learning method is not appropriate for learning to write poetry (questionnaire results in Appendix 12).
This research includes two main teaching and learning theories: cognitivism and constructivism.Students who learn other foreign languages certainly experience obstacles in their acquisition.Teachers who teach, in addition to paying attention to their students' cognitive issues, also need to pay attention to their students' social-emotional issues (Roslina, 2023).
The first theory is the cognitive theory of foreign language learning.Theoretically, this theory focuses on mental processes, including how people perceive, think, remember, learn, and solve problems (Yususf et all, 2022).Through outdoor learning, Hankuk University students are not only learning to write poetry.However, they also process the acquisition (memorizing, remembering, applying) of several Indonesian vocabularies in their brains.So that their learning at that time not only improved their ability to write Indonesian poetry but also increased their cognitive activity in acquiring a foreign language.
Another theory is the cognitive theory, namely learning, which emphasizes students building their knowledge.In this case, Hankuk University students receive material on creating Indonesian poetry and constructing ideas based on their observations of the surrounding environment, finding the proper diction, and formulating them in poetry.In addition to intersecting with the two theories, outdoor learning also intersects with social-emotional learning.As Roslina (2024) stated, if someone studies in the alpha zone, they are basically in the most comfortable zone.With these comfortable conditions, students are at a high concentration level so that they will quickly absorb and understand their lessons.Meanwhile, studying outside the classroom allows students to be in a relaxed atmosphere because all of their five senses are having fun even though they are studying.

CONCLUSION
Learning poetry with outdoor learning methods can improve students' poetry writing skills.Moreover, Hankuk University students, as foreign language learners, get other benefits, such as increased acquisition of Indonesian.This is supported by the facilitation of them getting new vocabulary and coming into direct contact with the object, memorizing it, and using it at the same time.It is also supported by the benefits of outdoor learning, which allow for socialemotional learning.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Pre-test Control Class and Experimental Class

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Post-Test Control Class and Experimental Class

Figure 3 .
Figure 3.The Average Value of the Pre-test and Post-test of the Control Class and the Experimental Class

Table 1 .
on the results of the control class pretest in the Malay-Indonesian Study Program Hankuk University of Foreign Studies South Korea.The data obtained from the respondents were as follows: The lowest pretest score obtained in the control class was 40, and the highest score was 80. Students who scored 40 -45 were eight students, 46 -51 were five students, 52 -57 were ten students, six students scored 58-63, 4 students scored 64-69, 2 students scored 70-75, and 2 students scored 76-81.For more details, see the frequency distribution table below: Distribution of Control Class Pre-test Frequency

Table 2 .
Post-test Frequency Distribution of Control Class

Table 3 .
Pre-test Control Class and Experimental Class

Table 4 .
Post-Test Control Class and Experimental Class