46-60_Siti Aisyah_Development of Thinking Skills in Early Childhood International Journal of Emerging Issues in Early Childhood Education (IJEIECE) Vol. 1, No. 1, May 2019, pp. 51-67 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31098/ijeiece.v1i1.17 p- I SSN 2 6 5 5- 9 98 6 Article History: Received March 1st, 2019; Accepted May 29th, 2019; Published May 29th, 2019. Development of Thinking Skills in Early Childhood Siti Aisyah a, 1 a Universitas Terbuka, Indonesia 1 sitia@ut.ac.id Abstract This research aims to obtain empirical data on the effect of reading method and thinking skills toward intelligence language of early childhood. Thus the researchers wanted to investigate the causal relationship between the reading method and thinking skills with the intelligence language of children by giving treatment to the experimental group and compared it with the control group. This study used a treatment design by level 2 x 2 be In the design, each of the independent variables are classified into two sides, includes action variable that is reading methods (A) are classified into the Big Book Methods (A1) and Syllables Method (A2). Whereas moderator variables that is thinking skills (B), are classified based on high and low level into high-level thinking skills (B1) and low-level thinking skills (B2). ANOVA calculation results showed that language skills of children who followed reading activities by using the Big Book method is higher than the language skills of children who attend reading activities by using Syllables method. Thus, there is the effect of the application of the Big Book method and Syllables methods toward language skills of children. Keywords: Big Book Method; Syllables Method; Thinking Skills and Language Skills This is an open access article under the CC–BY-NC license. INTRODUCTION Children are unique individuals and not adults in small forms. Every ability possessed by a child is like a vast ocean that stretches to be excavated and developed. It takes the environment and individuals who can bring about this potential. Viewed from development, the period from the time a child is born to the age of 6 years is the most critical period for children's cognitive development. The effort to improve thinking skills is by teaching high-level thinking or in English called Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS). As a basis for high-level understanding thinking, one of the learning domains proposed by Bloom can be used. In this study the six levels of thinking used the theory put forward by Benjamin Bloom, which was revised by Orin Anderson and David R. Krathwohl, namely: remember, comprehension, application (application), analysis, evaluation and Create. Thinking skills are divided into two categories, International Journal of Emerging Issues in Early Childhood Education (IJEIECE) Vol. 1, No. 1, May 2019, pp. 46-60 52 namely Lower Order Thinking Skills (LOTS) and Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS). In the Institute for Early Childhood Education (PAUD), training children to think must go through fun activities and not through heavy thinking exercises. One activity that is fun for children and can be used to develop HOTS children is a storytelling activity using tiered questions. Teachers need to provoke children to think higher by raising questions that demand higher thinking children. The general use of storytelling methods is to develop children's language skills. But other abilities can develop along with the development of children's language skills, which are prominent cognitive abilities. Piaget argues that cognitive development influences the development of language, so that in understanding stories, children's cognitive develops first, then their language skills. Efforts to develop early childhood thinking skills, in this study, are carried out through the use of questions systematic. By observing various phenomena and idealistic realities above, it is crucial to do research related to these multiple things. In Positivistic, this study will examine the use of teacher questions that can improve early childhood thinking skills. Based on the background description of the problem above, several issues can be identified as follows: 1) children's thinking skills have not been developed optimally, 2) teachers in kindergarten have not used the opportunity to practice children's thinking skills. By noting the extent of the problem, not all issues related to the development of early childhood thinking skills can be answered in this study. Therefore, the problem in this study is only limited to the variables studied, namely the aspects relating to children's thinking skills and how to develop them by using structured questions so that children's thinking skills can improve. This research was conducted in South Tangerang. Anita Woolfolk (2004: 53) suggests that the ability to speak of children aged 4-6 years, among others, children can tell stories, retell and continue some stories that have been heard, can communicate or talk fluently with correct pronunciation, can explain something and answer questions about what, who, what, where, why, cause and effect. Reading in terms of the whole language concept, Carole Edelsky et al. (1991: 13) states that are the ability to construct meaning in which there is an interaction between what children read and experience gained. The ability to read Aisyah / Development of Thinking Skills in Early Childhood 53 is essential for children as stated by Mary Leonhardt (2000: 27) that there are reasons why there is a need to grow love of reading in children, namely: 1) Children who love reading will learn well, most of the time is used to read, 2) Children love to read will have a higher sense of language. They will speak, write, and understand complex ideas better, 3) Reading will provide broader insights in everything, and make learning easier, 4) Reading fondness will provide a variety of perspectives to children, 5) Reading can help children to have compassion, 6) Children who love reading are faced with a world full of possibilities and opportunities, and 7) Children who love reading will be able to develop creative patterns within themselves. Reading activities are related to (1) the introduction of the letter (2) the sound of letters or series of letters, and (3) meaning or purpose and (4) understanding of meaning or purpose based on the context of the discourse. The most crucial issue in developing reading skills in early childhood is reconstructing the way to learn it so that children think their learning activities are like playing. About the concerns of some circles about teaching reading in early childhood was put forward by Jackson et al. (2005: 403) Reading before entering formal school does not affect school performance later. Children who know how to read when they enter school, remain superior readers at least until the sixth grade. Another opinion about how children read is put forward by David F. Bjorklund (2005: 400) who says that there are two approaches (1). A bottom-up process, where children learn the components of language (letter recognition, the relationship of letters to sounds) and then interpret it, while the second is a top-down process. This approach refers to a constructivist perspective based on the theory developed by Piaget. This approach teaches children to pay attention to the interests of children and the background of the knowledge they have, which is related to the information that will be learned from the text given. A top-down process approach puts forward a meaningful context which is then known as the whole- language approach. Lesley Mandel Morrow (1998: 241) writing is one of the media to communicate so that children can convey their meanings, ideas, thoughts, and feelings through meaningful strings of words. International Journal of Emerging Issues in Early Childhood Education (IJEIECE) Vol. 1, No. 1, May 2019, pp. 46-60 54 Writing is a process that allows someone to write down the meaning they have to be read by others. The process of writing involves thinking, feeling, speaking, and reading. Rita L. Atkinson (1997: 66) explains that language development has a major neurological system located “in the left brain (left hemisphere)”. The first major area was Broca's territory, related to the language's ability to produce or speak. Broca's territory is responsible for (1) the production of language, specifically the pronunciation of words correctly; (2) selection of appropriate and reasonable words, including loose words, affixed words, conjunctions; (3) compilation of complete sentences (not just keywords); (4) storage of articulation codes to determine the sequence of muscle movements needed to say a word; (5) the sender of the articulation code to the lip, tongue, larynx and other utensils in speech production activities. The second main area of language ability is the Wernicke area located in the temporal lobe (the area above the ear). This area plays a role in understanding words. Thus, this area allows one to listen to the sounds of language while understanding the meaning, meaning, and purpose. In this area, the audit code is stored and the meaning of the word. Understanding of this area includes understanding syntax. Laurent B. Resnick (1987: 44) defines high-level thinking skills as the ability to think when someone associates new information with information that has been stored in his memory and connects it and rearranges and develops that information to achieve a goal or find a settlement of a situation that is difficult to solve. Benjamin Bloom created a taxonomy which was then revised by Anderson and David R. Krathwohl (2001: 10) to categorize the level of abstraction of questions that often arise in the world of education. The taxonomy provides a structure that is useful for categorizing questions. The six categories in the opinion of Edwards, M. Craig & Briers can be divided into two categories, namely Power Order Thinking Skills (LOTS) and Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS). LOTS consists of skills in remembering, understanding, and using them. Whereas including the Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) include: combining, creating, designing, developing, evaluating, and justifying. According to the opinion of Anita Harnadek (1980: 56), several strategies can be carried out by teachers in improving the Aisyah / Development of Thinking Skills in Early Childhood 55 high-level thinking skills of their students. The steps are: (a) Teach skills in the real-life context of students (b) Vary the learning context in using newly taught thinking skills (c) Learning is done by optimizing every opportunity to build high-level thinking skills (d) Encouraging children to think about the thinking strategies they use. RESEARCH METHOD The research was conducted in Hikari Kindergarten and Bakti Atomica Kindergarten in South Tangerang's Setu District for three months, namely August to October 2013. In this study, the design used was experimental treatment by level 2 x 2. Design treatment by level 2 x 2 is an experimental design that involves one dependent variable and two or more independent variables. This design is used to investigate whether there is a causal relationship and how much the causal relationship is by giving specific treatments to several experimental groups and providing controls for comparison. This study uses design treatment by level 2 x 2 because two independent variables affect one dependent variable, namely the reading method and thinking skills as independent variables and the ability to speak as the dependent variable. In design, each independent variable is classified into two sides, including action variables, namely the reading method (A) is classified into the Big Book Method (A1) and the Syllable Method (A2). While the moderator variable is thinking skills (B), ranked based on the level of high and low into high-level thinking skills (B1) and low- level thinking skills (B2). Based on this explanation, the design can be seen in the table 1. Table 1. Design Experiment treatment by level 2 x 2 Method Thinking Big Book (A1) Word (A2) High(B1) A1B1 A2B1 Low (B2) A1B2 A2B2 Information: A1B1: A group of children with high-level thinking skills who get the reading method with the Big Book. A2B1: A group of children with high-level thinking skills who get a method of reading with syllables. A1B2: A group of children with low-level thinking skills who get the reading method with the Big Book. A2B2: A group of children with low-level thinking skills who get a method of reading with syllables. Population can be divided into actual population or target population (target population) and population accessible (accessible population). Thus, it can be International Journal of Emerging Issues in Early Childhood Education (IJEIECE) Vol. 1, No. 1, May 2019, pp. 46-60 56 explained that the affordable population in this study is group B Kindergarten in Setu District Academic Year 2013/2014. While the population is not affordable, that is, all groups of kindergarten in South Tangerang. The research sample was determined in a phased manner as follows: Determining Kindergarten for the implementation of Multi Stage Random Sampling research. Determination is done by paying attention to the characteristics of kindergartens that have similarities that can affect language skills, such as teacher quality, curriculum used, reading methods used, infrastructure owned, the social and geographical environment of the school. In addition, it also pays attention to family characteristics, such as parents' educational background, and family socioeconomic status. Based on these characteristics, there are seven kindergartens that meet established characteristics of the seven selected kindergartens, based on these criteria two kindergartens were established. Determination of the two kindergartens is done randomly, namely by lottery. In this way the TK Hikari and the Atomita Kindergarten were obtained. Determine the unit of analysis based on the tendency of children's thinking skills. Classifications used for thinking skills variables are high thinking skills and low thinking skills. Determination of groups of high and low thinking skills is done by using scores of self-developed thinking skills by adopting the thinking level of the theory put forward by Benjamin Bloom which created a taxonomy which was later revised Aisyah / Development of Thinking Skills in Early Childhood 57 by Anderson and David R. Krathwohl. The taxonomy was later developed by Barbara Fowler, Longview Community The provisions for sorting many samples of high and low groups by 27%, which were multiplied to 35%, the composition of the samples in each group was 16 children. Sampling for the determination of groups having high and low thinking skills is done by observation when the child is carrying out activities. The teacher uses a picture story book. Then read it to the students using a sequence of thinking skills. Researchers are assisted by other teachers who have been trained before to assess the child's ability at the time of the activity by giving a checklist to the instrument. Then group them into categories of children with low and high thinking skills by sequencing so that each of them numbered 16 children per class. Thus, overall 64 children were obtained as research subjects from the two schools. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Testing requirements analysis: Test for normality with Lilliefors Test and Homogeneity Test with Bartlett Test. The Table 1. Summary of Description of Data on Language Ability Thinking Skill Statistic Method Keterampilan Thinking Skill Big Book (A1) Words (A2) High (B1) n 16 16 32 x ̄ 159.44 154.19 156.81 s 3.20 3.56 4.27 s2 10.26 12.70 18.22 xmaksimal 165 160 165 xminimal 154 146 146 Low (B2) n 16 16 32 x ̄ 152.50 139.13 145.81 s 4.05 3.61 7.77 s2 16.40 13.05 60.42 xmaksimal 158 146 158 xminimal 146 131 131 Total n 32 32 64 x ̄ 155.97 146.66 151.31 s 5.03 8.43 8.33 s2 25.32 71.01 69.42 Information: n = number of samples per group x̄ = Average score for each group S = Standard Deviation s2 = sample variance for each group International Journal of Emerging Issues in Early Childhood Education (IJEIECE) Vol. 1, No. 1, May 2019, pp. 46-60 58 results of the normality test show data is normally distributed. Homogeneity testing shows that the same variance or data group is homogeneous. The summary of the results of the normality test can be seen in the table 2. Table 2. Normality Test Results Data Group N Lh Lt Remarks Group A1 32 0.1045 0.1566 Normal Group A2 32 0.1472 0.1566 Normal Group A1B1 16 0.0802 0.2130 Normal Group A2B1 16 0.1813 0.2130 Normal Group A1B2 16 0.0973 0.2130 Normal Group A2B2 16 0.0881 0.2130 Normal Table 2 shows that all groups of data tested for normality by Lilliefors test give a Lh value (Lilliefors value for observation) which is smaller than the Lt value (critical value L in the table for Lilliefors test) Thus it can be concluded that all data groups in the study this comes from a population with normal distribution. Homogeneity Test This test is carried out using the Bartlett Test. From the calculation of homogeneity test obtained 0.8287 while abel2 table at the significance level α = 0.05 is 7.8147. This number indicates that the null hypothesis is accepted, so it can be concluded that the population is homogeneous. In more detail the calculation results can be seen in the table 3. Table 3. Homogeneity Test Results Sample Group db si2 log si2 (ni-1) si2 (ni-1) log si2 A1B1 15 10.26 1.01 153.94 15.17 A1B2 15 16.40 1.21 246.00 18.22 A2B1 15 12.70 1.10 190.44 16.55 A2B2 15 13.05 1.12 195.75 16.73 ∑ 60 52.41 4.45 786.13 66.68 After the requirements for testing the analysis, the hypothesis testing is done by using a two-way analysis of variance (ANAVA) at a significance level of 5% (α = 0.05). A summary of the results of the calculation of data analysis, can be seen in the table 4. Table 4 Results of Calculation of Two-way ANAVA Variance db Sum Square Mean Square Fhitung Ftabel Learning Method A 1 1387.56 1387.56 105.90 4.00 Learning Method B 1 1936.00 1936.00 147.76 4.00 Interaction A*B 1 264.06 264.06 20.15 4.00 Error 60 786.13 13.10 Total 63 4373.75 Based on the results of analysis of variance (ANAVA) two paths can be explained as follows First, testing the first hypothesis, from Table 4, obtained Fount = 105.90 and Ftable = 4.00 at the 0.05 significance level, Aisyah / Development of Thinking Skills in Early Childhood 59 because Fcount> Ftable then H0 is rejected. This means there are differences in language skills between children given the Big Book Method and the Syllable Method. Because the average language ability of children given the Big Book Method is 155.97 and for the Syllable Method is 146.66, it is concluded that the language skills of children given the Big Book Method are higher than the language skills of children given the Syllable Method. Second, testing the second hypothesis, obtained Calculations = 20.15 and Ftables = 4.00 at the 0.05 level of significance, because Fcount> Ftable then H0 is rejected. This means that there is an influence of the interaction between the reading method (A) and thinking skills (B), on the language skills of early childhood. Based on the testing of the research data group, it can be visualized as in the figure 1. Figure 1. Visualization of Interactions between Reading Methods and Thinking Skills on Language Ability Because there are interactions between children who are given the Big Book Method and the Syllable for children's language skills, then proceed to testing the simple effect with the Tuckey Test. Table 5. Conclusion of the Tuckey Test No Range Mean Qcount Qtabl e 1 A1B1-A2B1 µA1B1= 159.44 µA2B1= 154.19 5.25 2.56 2 A1B2-A2B2 µA1B2 = 152.50 µA2B2 = 139.13 13.38 2.56 Third, testing the third hypothesis is known from table 5 the value of Q count = 5.25 and Qtable = 2.56 for the significance level of 0.05, then H0 is rejected. The average language skills of children with the Big Book Method and have high thinking skills = 159.44 and the average language skills of children given the Syllable Method and have high thinking skills = 154.19. So that it can be concluded that children who have high thinking skills, who were given the Big Book Method obtained higher language skills compared to children who were given the Syllable Method. Fourth, from Table 5, the value of Q count = 13.38 and Qtable = 2.56 for the significance level of 0.05, then H0 is accepted. "The hypothesis is not supported by empirical data". The average language skills of children with the Big Book Method 159.44 154.19152.50 139.13 120.00 130.00 140.00 150.00 160.00 170.00 A1 A2 B1 B2 International Journal of Emerging Issues in Early Childhood Education (IJEIECE) Vol. 1, No. 1, May 2019, pp. 46-60 60 and have low thinking skills = 152.50 and the average language skills of children given the Syllable Method and have low thinking skills = 139.13 So it can be concluded that children who have low thinking skills are given the Big Method Book obtains higher language skills compared to children given the Syllable Method. Discussion Table 6. Language Ability Scores for Each Group Method Thinking BigBook (A1) Word (A2) ∑ Line High (B1) Mean 159.44 154.19 156.8 Low (B2) Mean 152.50 139.13 145.82 ∑ Column Mean 155.97 146.66 151.31 CONCLUSION Based on the table it can be concluded that the average score of language skills that follow reading activities with Big Book with a tendency to high thinking skills is higher than the group of children who follow the Syllable Method with high thinking skills (159.44> 154.19). The findings in the field show that by giving the Big Book method to children who have high thinking skills, they will be more challenged and have the flexibility to think especially when giving meaning to the words taught and their links to the whole storyline. By using descriptive analysis, the average score of the results of language skills obtained by reading activities using the Big Book Method was different from the scores produced by the children who took part in reading activities with the Syllable Method, which were 155.97 and 146.66, respectively. This is supported by inferential analysis which states that there is a difference between language skills that follow reading activities using the Big Book Method with the Syllable Method. Judging from the magnitude of the average score produced by the two methods, it can be said that the Big Book Method produces a higher language proficiency score compared to the Syllable Method. The results of ANAVA calculations show that the language skills of children who take part in reading activities with the Big Book Method are higher than the language skills of children who take part in reading activities with the Syllable Method. Thus, there is influence in the application of the Big Book Method and the Syllable Method to children's language skills. These results reinforce the research conducted by Connie and Cecilia (2000: 12) who concluded that there were differences Aisyah / Development of Thinking Skills in Early Childhood 61 in the ability to speak children aged 4-6 years, between classes given learning strategies through reading books and opportunities to write more than those that were less read. and the opportunity to write. The standard deviations produced by the Big Book Method and the Syllable Method are 5.03 and 8.43, respectively, indicating that the Big Book Method produces a smaller standard deviation compared to the Syllable Method. the Big Book Method has a more homogeneous value variation compared to the Syllable Method. The same thing can be seen from the interaction between the reading method and thinking skills in improving language skills for children, shown in the results of hypothesis testing where it results in rejecting H0 at the significance level α = 0.05, which means there is an interaction between reading methods and thinking skills towards language skills. This fact is an indication that the grouping of children based on thinking skills has an effect and influence on the effectiveness of the Big book Method and the Syllable Method in improving language skills for children in this study. In the picture the results of the interaction in this study show no intersection of lines. In the opinion of Douglas C. Montgomery (2005: 161) that if the two lines are not in parallel position, and one line is in a supporting position, then there can be interactions. In the group that has high thinking skills, through the descriptive statistical approach provides a difference in the average score of language skills between groups of children who read the Big Book Method with groups of children who were given reading activities with the Syllable Method. The magnitude of the average score is 156.81 and 145.81 Both of these differences indicate descriptively that they can be said to be different. The results of hypothesis testing reinforce the existence of these differences, namely there are differences between the language skills given by the Big Book Method and the children given with the Syllable Method. Thus it can be said that the Big book Method is better than the Syllable Method in improving language skills for children by using high thinking skills. The results of testing this hypothesis, shows that teachers who always strive to improve their thinking ability by asking questions while children read books according to their level of thinking ability, International Journal of Emerging Issues in Early Childhood Education (IJEIECE) Vol. 1, No. 1, May 2019, pp. 46-60 62 the vocabulary of children is more than children only read themselves. The fourth hypothesis shows that it has succeeded in accepting the null hypothesis which states that in groups of children who have low thinking skills, the language skills of children who get the Syllable method are lower than the language intelligence of children who get the Big Book Method. Language proficiency scores given reading activities with the Big Book Method are higher than the Syllable Method, which are 152.50 and 139.13 respectively. Specifically this hypothesis is not proven. The reason is “empirical data is not supportive in testing this hypothesis”. The second difference in the average score is evidenced by inferential testing, which results in differences. These results illustrate the effectiveness of the Big Book Method compared to the Syllable Method. This illustrates that although given to children who have low thinking skills, the score using Big Book remains higher than the use of the Syllable Method. This is in accordance with the theory put forward by Graham and Woodhouse (1987: 23) who suggested that Big Book provides an opportunity for children who are slow in reading to recognize writing with the help of teachers and friends. In addition, Big Book allows teachers and students to share joy and share activities together. Because the content of the story is close to the life of the child, so Big Book was also declared to be liked by all children including those who were slow in reading, because by reading the Big Book together there would arise courage and confidence as stated by M. Woodhouse. All the results of the analysis described, both in descriptive analysis and inferential analysis, are reasonable to say that the use of the Big Book Method is more effective in improving children's language skills compared to the use of the Syllable Method. This result is consistent with the research conducted by Cohran-Smith (1986: 12); Morrow (1988: 8) which states that the use of the Big Book Method will develop children's basic abilities in all aspects of language, namely speaking, listening, reading and writing. a. There are differences in language skills between children who get the reading method with Big Book with children who get the method of reading with the syllables. The language ability of children who get the reading method with Big Book is higher than the language skills of children who get the method of reading with syllables. Aisyah / Development of Thinking Skills in Early Childhood 63 b. There is an influence of interaction between reading methods and thinking skills on language skills, or the influence of reading methods on children's language skills depends on thinking skills. c. For children who have high thinking skills. The language skills of children who get the reading method with Big Book and have high thinking skills are higher than the language skills of children who get the method of reading with the syllables and have high thinking skills. d. For children who have low thinking skills. The language skills of children who get the reading method with the Katadan have low thinking skills, lower than the language skills of children who get reading methods with Big Book and have low thinking skills. Thus in general it can be concluded that, using the Big Book Method can improve language skills. For children who have high thinking skills, the Big Book Method provides higher language skills than the Syllable Method. However, the results of this study also show that for children with low thinking skills, the Big Book Method provides higher language skills compared to the Like Method. Kata. Thus, the Big Book Method for both categories of thinking skills, namely high and low levels, the results are still better than the Syllable Method. The implications of the research that has been conducted are expected to contribute positively to children's language skills. The implications are described as follows. First, as long as the process of reading in kindergarten is still considered a taboo thing, or is still struggling with the need for kindergarten children to be taught to read and write, it is necessary to continue to study and develop reading methods that are appropriate for children's development. The choice of method must pay attention to the four literacy abilities, namely listening and writing in an integrated and continuous manner, because actually the difficulty of children learning languages is mainly because adults break the unity of language into small pieces so that it becomes abstract. It seems very logical to think that young children can achieve the best learning outcomes, by learning simple little things. Thus we need to cut language into isolated parts of words, syllables and sounds. However, if this is done it means that we have eliminated the natural purpose of International Journal of Emerging Issues in Early Childhood Education (IJEIECE) Vol. 1, No. 1, May 2019, pp. 46-60 64 language, namely “communication meaning / meaning” and transformed it into a set of abstract forms, not related to the needs and experiences of children that should be developed. Second, the influence of the interaction between reading methods and thinking skills on language skills indicates that thinking skills need to be considered in carrying out activities in kindergarten. It can be seen from the influence between the application of the Big Book Method and the Syllable Method to language skills. Through the Syllable Method, children's freedom to develop language skills through reading and expressing their feelings and thoughts through writing, is very limited. Whereas through the Big Book Method learning to read and write (in terms of mechanical ability) is a consequence of developing language skills. Furthermore, the meaning of the reading and construct meaning that surrounds the child is the result of the socialization of the child with his environment. When contruct means mastery of thinking skills is very influential. Third, efforts to train high-level thinking children must go through fun activities. One activity that is fun for children and can be used to develop children's HOTS is storytelling activities. In the method of storytelling, it is usually equipped with question and answer that is done before, at the time, or after the story has been delivered. This opportunity can be utilized as much as possible by the teacher in training HOTS children through tiered questions. Fourth, by using Big Book, children will get used to predicting the words that will appear next, when they read. This is a strategy that adults use in reading. Thus children are trained to use reading strategies such as those used by adults. So by using Big Book, teachers are more likely to transmit reading to children than to teach the reading process. Read the story by using it under the philosophy of teaching a holistic language. Language teaching using this philosophy emphasizes the unity of the introduction of elements of language skills which include listening (listening carefully and critically) to oral, reading, speaking and writing information. Thus it is natural, if the child has thinking skills, where his ability to digest what he hears carefully, higher than children who have low thinking skills. Fifth, a pleasant atmosphere can be presented during the activities of reading the Big Book together. The strength of text and illustrations, allows children to be Aisyah / Development of Thinking Skills in Early Childhood 65 involved as active readers. As long as the activity reads the story, the teacher can bring a relaxed atmosphere, full of jokes and laughter. This is possible because Big Book texts usually contain repetition of words, containing vocabulary with several words repeated, having the strength and simplicity of the storyline, texts that can be sung / sung, and often associated with humor. In addition, Big Book can provide a very good opportunity for children to be involved in real life situations with all their problems in a way that does not scare children. Children are motivated to learn to read faster. Children grow up confident because they have been successful as early readers. Children learn in a pleasant atmosphere. The culmination of all, naturally the child is very fond of the story of both the different story themes and the same story. The benefits obtained from reading the Big Book will grow slowly to encourage children to immediately read their own stories. Thus it is natural, children who take part in reading activities with the Syllable Method with a tendency to have low thinking skills, are lower than the group of children who have low thinking skills with the Big Book Method. This is because even though they have low thinking skills, but because they use the Big Book Method that is fun and makes children's self confidence better, the results are still better than the children who follow the Syllable Method. Suggestion Based on the conclusions and implications that have been stated, For students 1. Development of Thinking Skills. In accordance with the characteristics of kindergarten-age children, namely the world of play, the process of learning activities cannot be separated from the pleasant atmosphere of play. From the pleasant atmosphere, you can train your child's thinking skills. Children do not automatically have this skill. Like other skills, children need to repeat thinking skills through practice even though these skills are already part of the way they think. 2. Development of language skills in children. Children need to be given the widest opportunity to develop their potential and not limit it by teaching reading and writing by understanding teaching systems / mechanisms or how to sound, write and arrange International Journal of Emerging Issues in Early Childhood Education (IJEIECE) Vol. 1, No. 1, May 2019, pp. 46-60 66 letters into sentences given by teachers or reading / writing textbooks. If so, the freedom of the child to develop the ability to speak through existing reading and express their feelings and thoughts through writing becomes very limited. To the School Schools need to improve the ability of their teachers by providing insight into the existence of various innovations in learning activities for early childhood. Among them is the method of reading, the study of methods that best suit the characteristics of the child as well as the ability of the teacher and available facilities is very necessary. Thus, learning activities will always be renewable and on target. Teacher Teachers need to constantly strive to improve their ability to deliver learning material to their students, by continuing to look for methods that are appropriate to the characteristics of students and not only using one method, but can look for other methods that make children more happy to learn. Educational Education Institution (LPTK) Based on the results of the study it can be suggested to utilize the results of the study, as one of the references in order to equip students, to be able to use the results of research as an alternative method that can be applied in learning activities. Government (Directorate of Early Childhood Education, Non-Formal and In- Formal-PAUDNI). It is expected to be able to take advantage of the results of this study, by disseminating information on alternative methods that can be used by PAUD teachers, in order to develop the language skills of early childhood. REFERENCES Amstrong, Thomas. (2001). Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom 3 rd Ed.(Virginia: ASCD). Anderson & Krathwohl. (2006). Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assesing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Complete Ed). New York: Longman. Atkinson, Rita L. (1997). Pengantar Psikologi. Terjemahan Edisi Kedelapan. Jakarta: Erlangga. Aisyah / Development of Thinking Skills in Early Childhood 67 Bjorklund, David F. (2005). Children’s Thinking. CA: Florida Atlantic University. Bond, Guy L. and Eva Bond Wagner. (1990). Teaching the Child to Read New York: The MacMillan Company. Bromley, K. D. (1992). Languange Art: Exploring Connections. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Cohen, Vicki L. and John E. Cowen. (2008). Literacy for Children in An Information Age Teaching Reading, Writing, and Thinking California: Thomson Higher Education. Craig, Edwards, M. & Briers. (2002). Higher- Order Thinking versus Lower-Order Thinking Skills: does School Day Scheduling Pattern Influence Achievement at Different Levels of Learning? Texas: A&M University. Edelsky, Carol, dkk. (1991). Whole Language What’s the Difference. Portsmouth: N. H. Heinemann Educational. Fisher, Bobby. (1991). Joyful Learning: A Whole Language Kindergarten. New Hamshire: Heinemann. Goodman. (1986). What’s Whole in Whole Language?. Portmouth, NH: Heinemann. Harnadek, Anita, (1980).Critical Thinking Book Two. California: Midwest Pub. Jackson, N.E., Donaldson, G.W and Mills, J.R dalam Robert S. Siegler and Martha Wagler. (2005). Children Thinking .New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. Kostelnik , Marjorie J, Anne K. Soderman dan Alice P. Whiren. (2007). Developmentally Appropriate Curriculum Best Practices in Early Childhood Education, New Jersey: Pearson Merryll Prentice Hall. Lynch Priscilla, A Guide fo Using Big Books in The Classrooms. (20 Desember 2013). from http://www.scribd.com/doc/ 119089338. Morrow, Lesley Mandel. (1998). Literacy Development in The Early Years, Helping Children Read and Write, Second Ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and Learning to Think, Washington DC:National Academy Press. Schunk, H. Dale. (2012). .Learning Theories an Educational Perspective, Sixth Edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Woolfolk, Anita. (2007). Educational Psychology Tenth Edition. Boston: Pearson Ed.Inc.