mid-February, and tree pollen was already at a “moderate” level.

Antihistamines are another option

best to start them in early in the season

Over-the-counter nasal sprays

changing clothes when you get home.

weeds in the late summer and early fall

grasses pollinate

Earlier in the spring, tree pollen

itchy eyes

Where you live

an annual ranking of the most challenging cities to live in if you have allergies

avoiding exposure

birch, cedar, cottonwood, maple, elm, oak and walnut

AbstractThis study aims to investigate the effect of Resource Based Learning Design Thinking (RBLDT) model to improve student'screative thinking skills, concept gaining, and digital literacy. It is a quasi-experimental study using pre-test and post-testnonequivalent control group design. Furthermore, it was conducted at several senior high schools in Ambon, such as SeniorHigh School 1, 2, 12, and Senior High School Siwalima Ambon in the odd semester of the 2019/2020 academic year. Fromeach school, three classes were selected, and 36 students were used as the study samples to obtain a total of 432 students.The data were analyzed using ANCOVA, and post hoc LSD test was performed for every significant result obtained. Theresults showed that the RBLDT learning model has an effect on creative thinking skills, concept gaining, and digital literacy ofstudents in the class XI senior high school on the subject matter of animal tissue (p<0.05). The combination of the RBLDTlearning model syntax can improve students' creative thinking skills, concept gaining, and digital literacy better than RBL orDT when implemented separately.

References

4. Discussion4.1. Effect of the RBLDT learning model on students’ creative thinking skills

Table 8. Test results of LSD test on students’ creative thinking skills

2. Method2.1. Research designThis is a quasi-experimental study with pre-test and post-test nonequivalent group design(Dimitrov & Rumrill, 2003). The independent variable is the learning model (RBL learning model, DTmethod, and RBLDT learning model), while the dependent are creative thinking skills, concept gaining,and digital literacy of students (Table 1).

Dominggus Rumahlatu a *, Study Program of Biology Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education,Pattimura University, Jl. Ir. M. Putuhena, Ambon 97233, Indonesia. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4466-5528Kristin Sangur b, Study Program of Biology Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, PattimuraUniversity, Jl. Ir. M. Putuhena, Ambon 97233, Indonesia. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4576-6328Martha M. Berhitu c, Senior High School 1 Ambon, Indonesia. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0332-9667Since Y. Kainama d, Senior High School 2 Ambon, Indonesia. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3472-9206Vera V. Kakisina e, Senior High School 12 Ambon, Indonesia. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9298-2635Corneli Latupeirissa f, Senior High School Siwalima Ambon, Indonesia. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3696-4568

Cypriot Journal of EducationalSciencesVolume 16, Issue 1, (2021) 288-302

The problem statements were:• Is there an effect of the RBLDT learning model on students' creative thinking skills?• Is there an effect of the RBLDT learning model on students' concept gaining?• Is there an effect of the RBLDT learning model on students’ digital literacy?

IntroductionEducation is currently evolving with the development of the era of globalization and technology(Gamar, Al Faruq, & Lina, 2018; Benjamin, White, MacKeracher, & Stella, 2013). Up to date, the trendof the industrial revolution (IR) 4.0 has also influenced the education system in Indonesia (Lase, 2019;Afrianto, 2018). This has been happening since the industrial revolution and education 4.0 i to achievethe ultimate goal in the era of globalization, such as improving human civilization. According to Hussin(2018), IR 4.0 needs to be fully understood before understanding education 4.0. This is because IR 4.0affects not only management and social affairs, but also education. Shahroom & Hussin (2018)confirmed that the current view of education has shifted to the trend of IR 4.0, marked with thedevelopment of new models in the future education. Furthermore, the education in the trend of IR 4.0is not only limited to the walls of the schools but also reaches out to the wider world. The wide reachis not in the physical sense but in the non-physical through the internet connection. Nowadays,science is developing rapidly on the Internet, helping students to access knowledge through varioussources. This is because learning resources using internet are not limited to time and space. Accordingto Wallner & Wagner (2016) and Suartama, Setyosari, Sulthoni, & Ulfa (2019), the current condition ofstudents’ learning method is by using laptops/notebooks, mobile phone, and the information from e-books, articles, and the google search engine. Currently, the information provided by teachers evencan often be outranked by google search engine.One learning model which is equal to the use of various sources to access scientific information isthe Resource-Based Learning model (RBL). The RBL is one of the most important learning models usedduring this time, and it requires students to learn from a variety of sources to access and communicateusing technology. Furthemore, it is based on constructivist philosophy while introducing real problemsto students by systematically empowering their thinking processes. Therefore, it is one of theimportant learning models used in this era (Suntusia, Dafik, & Hobri, 2019; Butler, 2012; Yaniawati,Kariadinata, Sari, Pramiarsih, & Mariani, 2020). According to Hill & Hannafin (2001), theimplementation of this model should contextualize the information sources to make it easier forstudents to access broad information from various sources. It has been successfully implemented inbiology learning (Cui, Zhang, & Chen, 2019), however, to design an innovative learning and differentconditions, educators modify learning models using different techniques. The modification can beconducted by reconstructing the stages of RBL learning using the design thinking method.Design Thinking (DT) is a problem-solving method that focuses on creative solutions to varioustopics / problems, and emphasizes on team communication and collaboration. Studies have shownthat this method can improve the quality of teaching, participation, and students' independence indeveloping interest and learning to find concepts for independence (Tu, Liu, & Wu, 2018). Therefore,the implementation can contextualize learning materials since several studios showed that the DTmethod can improve problem-solving, team-work, creativity, and creative thinking skills of students(Jeon, 2019; Carroll, 2014; Scheer, Noweski, & Meinel, 2011). The study by Anderson (2013) reportedthat the implementation can be enhanced by creative and innovative skills of students. According toNoel & Liub (2017), the design thinking can improve their thinking principles, such as empathy,collaboration and facilitation, relationships with others, and creativity. In addition, according toDarminto (2013), it can be improved by using learning methods or models to accommodate new ideasof student and use them to engage the thinking process. According to Zubaidah (2018) and Palupi,Subiyantoro, Triyanto, & Rukayah (2020), creative thinking is one of the personal skills which can beobtained through training in learning process. Also, it is needed to solve problems in learning(Batlolona, Diantoro, Wartono, & Latifah, 2019)

Resource based learning design thinking (RBLDT): A model toimprove students’ creative thinking skills, concept gaining, anddigital literacy

TABLE 1Comparison of Average Frequencies of Features of“Baby Talk” in Talk to Infants and Dogs

derstand basic vocabulary such as words for toys and commands (Walton &McConocha, 1996; Warden & Warner, 1928). In a study by Mitchell andEdmonson (1999), people generally spoke in short, repetitive utterances,with 7 words (including “come,” the dog’s name, and “ball”) accounting forabout 50% of the words used, and commands (imperatives) for over 50% ofthe utterances. However, people also talk to dogs in ways that are unsuitablefor the dog’s comprehension. In the Mitchell and Edmonson study, 377 dif-ferent words accounted for the other 50% of people’s output, and over 10%of their utterances were questions (which, of course, the dogs could not an-swer). Talk to dogs at times seems devoted to producing a conversation-likeengagement, with little expectation of comprehension.Talk to young infants (“baby talk”) shares with dog talk a focus oncontrol and conversation-like engagement (Ferguson, 1977; McDonald &Pien, 1982; Newport, 1977; Snow, 1972, 1977). In contrast, however, peo-ple do not expect infants to understand talk’s content (Garnica, 1977). Inmany cultures, talk to infants is marked by being shorter or slower, mostlyabout the present situation, and having a higher pitch (or more exaggeratedsigns), many diminutive word forms, lower mean length of utterance(MLU), and greater repetitiveness than utterances to adults (e.g., Casa-grande, 1948/1964; Ferguson, 1964; Jocic′, 1978; Newport, 1977; Remick,1976; Snow, 1972).These features are not universally present, however. Not all culturesmark talk to infants with a distinct register (Ochs & Schieffelin, 1984;Ratner & Pye, 1984; Schieffelin, 1990). The age of infants when peoplebegin to speak to them and the age at which adults stop doing baby talkvaries cross-culturally (Casagrande, 1948/1964; Fernald & Morikawa,1993; Harkness, 1976). In addition, features prominent in baby talk insome cultures are less prominent in others. For example, the high pitch socommon to baby talk in several cultures (Fernald et al., 1989; Garnica,1977; Masataka, 1992b; Shute & Wheldall, 1989), and especially salientin American English, is used in Quiche Mayan to speak to high-status per-sons (Ratner & Pye, 1984). Even within a culture, mothers may move inand out of baby talk, and features present in one person’s baby talk maynot be in another’s, based on social status of the participants, context, orindividual style (Blount & Padgug, 1977; Della Corte, Benedict, & Klein,1983; Ferguson, 1977; Kaye, 1980; Snow et al., 1976; Wills, 1977;Zeidner, 1983). The baby’s age also influences the type of baby talk used.According to Kaye (1980), one type, baby talk 1 (BT1), addressed to 1- to6-month-old babies who have no comprehension of English, contains few184 Robert W. Mitchell diminutives, very short MLUs (2.76 words), repetitive utterances, andhigh rates of phatics (21%) and immediate exact repetitions (16%). Theother type, baby talk 2 (BT2), addressed to 2-year-olds (who understandand use English), contains more diminutives, longer MLUs (3.68 words),fewer immediate exact repetitions (<4%), and presumably fewer phatics.These differences raise questions as to which aspects of baby talk make ita distinct register of talk within a culture.Many features of baby talk are found in talk to dogs. Indeed, similartalk is sometimes directed by caregivers to care receivers (Blount, 1977),whether these receivers are animals, foreigners, elderly patients, retardedpeople, lovers, or even dolls (Caporael, Lukaszewski, & Culbertson, 1983;DePaulo & Coleman, 1986; Ferguson, 1964, 1977; Rã±e-DraviÃa, 1977;Sachs & Devin, 1976). Talk to these other recipients is called secondarybaby talk to mark its similarity to talk to infants (Caporael, 1981; Fergu-son, 1977).Secondary uses of baby talk are presumed to derive from its primaryuses (Ferguson, 1977). For example, in both forms of baby talk, high-pitched speech expresses affection, engages attention, and makes compre-hension easier (Caporael, 1981; Fernald & Mazzie, 1991; Garnica, 1977;Masataka, 1992b; Montepare, Steinberg, & Rosenberg, 1992; Sachs,1977; Snow, 1978), and short or slow utterances make comprehensioneasier for the typically less attentive or linguistically endowed receiver(Ferguson, 1977; Freed, 1981; Masataka, 1992a; Newport, Gleitman, &Gleitman, 1977; Pellegrino & Scopesi, 1990; Snow, 1972; cf. Kaye, 1980;Montepare et al., 1992). However, some characteristics of baby talk mayoccur because of the nature of the interaction, rather than because they areaspects of a distinct linguistic register called baby talk. For example, re-petitive utterances in baby talk may result because mothers focus on (andtalk about) one topic at a time, whether it concerns an object or theirbaby’s short bursts of repetitive behavior (Kaye, 1980; Messer, 1980).Repetition is also common when addressees are not attending or respon-sive to the speaker’s attempts to control their behavior (Cross, 1978; Dunn& Kendrick, 1982; Gleason, 1977; Mitchell & Edmonson, 1999; Newport,1977; Pellegrino & Scopesi, 1990; Schaffer & Crook, 1979), again indi-cating a consistent focus. In fact, when the focus of conversation betweenadults is delimited, partial (but not exact) repetition of utterances is com-mon (Kaye, 1980).One explanation that is distinctive to primary baby talk (also calledmotherese) is that it can develop infants’ linguistic skills by teaching in-Americans’ Talk to Dogs 185 fants important features of language (Newport et al., 1977; Snow, 1972), ahypothesis that, in various incarnations, remains controversial (Furrow,Nelson, & Benedict, 1979; Murray, Johnson, & Peters, 1990; Snow, Perl-man, & Nathan, 1987; Wells & Robinson, 1982). Some aspects of primarybaby talk, such as frequent use of deictic (naming) utterances, support a tu-torial function, whereas others do not. For example, a high proportion ofwell-formed sentences was initially thought to be a special characteristic ofmotherese, but in fact baby talk’s brevity breeds grammatical correctness—shorter sentences tend to be more grammatically correct than longer sen-tences no matter to whom they are spoken (Hirsh-Pasek & Treiman, 1982).Secondary baby talk is interesting to compare to primary baby talkbecause the former clearly does not have any tutorial function (Caporael etal., 1983; Ferguson, 1977; Hirsh-Pasek & Treiman, 1982; McLeod, 1993).Thus, any similarities between secondary and primary baby talk suggest afunction not solely tutorial as an explanation.Indeed, one argument against the “motherese is language tutoring”idea is that talk very much like motherese is used toward dogs (Ferguson,1964; Hirsh-Pasek & Treiman, 1982; Murray et al., 1990; Scollon, 1976).For example, Hirsh-Pasek and Treiman (1982) argued that “the strikingsimilarities between motherese and [talk to dogs] indicate that mothereseis not initially tailored to the linguistic or cognitive level of the child . . .[and thus plays] a broader and less specific role than that of teaching for-mal language structure” (p. 235). Yet how similar talk to infants and talk todogs is remains unclear. Oddly, the evidence used to support the claim ofstriking similarities between talk to infants and dogs is that both differ fromtalk between adults in similar ways, rather than that these forms of talk arethemselves very much alike. Indeed, surprisingly few empirical data haveaddressed how many characteristics are shared by secondary and primarybaby talk within a given culture and language. Is talk the same toward bothbabies and dogs? The fact that the talk of only four people to their dogs isthe basis for comparisons between talk to infants and dogs (Hirsh-Pasek &Treiman, 1982) suggests that a more extensive comparison is needed toclarify the accuracy of similarities and differences between them.Using methods employed to analyze talk to infants, the purpose ofthis article is to analyze talk during play episodes with familiar and unfa-miliar dogs by 23 people. I compare talk to dogs (in this study) with talk toinfants (from previous studies) to determine how the forms of talk are sim-ilar, detect differences that might support a tutorial function distinct tobaby talk, and evaluate the significance of these similarities and dissimi-186 Robert W. Mitchell larities. This analysis also raises questions about exactly what constitutesevidence for a distinct register of speech called baby talk.I examined talk to dogs during play because many studies of moth-erese looked at talk to infants during play and other structured, focused,and repetitive activities (Cross, 1977; Kaye, 1980; Messer, 1980; Murrayet al., 1990; Schaffer & Crook, 1979; Snow, 1977; Stern, Beebe, Jaffe, &Bennett, 1977; Sylvester-Bradley & Trevarthen, 1978). However, it is im-portant to remember that play is only one situation in which people talk todogs. For example, people appear to utter questions and declaratives morefrequently than imperatives when interacting in a low-key way with a dog(Robins, Sanders, & Cahill, 1991), a direct contrast with talk during play(Mitchell & Edmonson, 1999). I focus on prosodic, lexical, complexity,redundancy, and content features of talk that have been documented asfeatures of talk to infants (described later; see Kaye, 1980), as well as con-sidering issues of coordination. A first issue of coordination concerns therelations between MLU and the frequencies of diminutives, phatics, andimmediate exact repetitions. Kaye (1980) suggested that BT1 is usedwhen the mother pretends that the infant is a conversant, whereas BT2 oc-curs when the child is actually able to converse and understand. Talk todogs should, presumably, fall between these two types of baby talk, asdogs understand but cannot converse. The other coordination issue con-cerns whether features suggestive of a conversation (diminutives, endear-ments, questions—especially tag questions [tags] and postcompleters[PCs]—and answering these questions) tend to occur together, andwhether features suggestive of a desire to control the other (imperatives,attention-getting devices [AGDs], and repetitiveness) appear together(Dunn & Kendrick, 1982; Snow, 1977). Because playing with dogs is pre-sumably about control (Mitchell & Edmonson, 1999), I expect dog talk tohave few diminutives, endearments, questions, and answers to questions,and more imperatives and AGDs, as well as repetitive utterances

Talking to dogs seems both reasonable and unreasonable. On the rea-sonable side, talk to dogs reflects people’s expectation that dogs will un-

Americans’ Talk to Dogs: Similarities andDifferences With Talk to Infants

Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34(2), 183–210

METHODS

REFERENCES

DISCUSSION

Robert W. Mitchell

Common knowledge tells us that people talk “baby talk” to dogs, but how similartalk to dogs and infants is remains unexplored. In this study, people’s talk to dogs dur-ing 46 play interactions was coded and compared with previous studies about talk toinfants. Talk to dogs and infants shared numerous features, including a high-pitch reg-ister, a low mean length of utterance, high frequencies of grammatically acceptableutterances, present-tense verbs, repetitiveness, and attention-getting devices. Differ-ences were also present. Talk to dogs contained shorter sentences and more impera-tives and exact repetitions; talk to infants had more questions, declaratives, and deicticutterances. Reasons for the similarities and differences are elaborated on. Both formsinvolve communicating with a limited and inattentive addressee, controlling the ad-dressee’s attention and behavior by focusing on an object or activity, and expressingfriendliness and affection. They differ in that talk to infants is more likely to treat theother as a conversant and, especially, to tutor the other in naming