International Journal of Emerging Issues in Early Childhood Education (IJEIECE) ​Vol. 1, No.

1, May 2019,
pp. 46-60 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31098/ijeiece.v1i1.17 ​p-ISSN 2655-9986 © International Journal of Emerging Issues in Early
Childhood Education (IJEIECE)

Development of Thinking Skills in Early

Childhood

Siti Aisyah a,​ 1 ​a ​Universitas

Terbuka, Indonesia ​1 ​[email protected]

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

environment and individuals who can bring

This is an open access article under the CC
about this potential. Viewed from
BY-NC-SA license.
development, the period from the time a

child is born to the age of 6 years is the

INTRODUCTION
most critical period for children's cognitive
Children are unique individuals and not
development. The effort to improve
adults in small forms. Every ability thinking
possessed
skills is by teaching high-level thinking or
by a child is like a vast ocean that in
stretches
English called ​Higher Order Thinking Skills
to be excavated and developed. It takes
the (HOTS). As a basis for high-level
 namely
understanding thinking, one of the learning
domains proposed by Bloom can be used. Lower Order Thinking Skills (LOTS) and
In
Higher Order Thinking Skills
this study the six levels of thinking used (HOTS).
the
In the Institute for Early Childhood
theory put forward by Benjamin Bloom,
Education (PAUD), training children to
which was revised by Orin Anderson and think

David R. Krathwohl, namely: ​remember, must go through fun activities and not

comprehension​, application (​application​), through heavy thinking exercises. One

anal​ysis,​ evalua​tion a
​ nd ​Create. Thinking activity that is fun for children and can be

skills are divided into two categories,

Article History: Received March 1​st​, 2019; Accepted May 29​th​, 2019; Published May 29​th​,
2019.

Aisyah 47 / Development of Thinking Skills in Early Childhood ​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 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)
International Journal of Emerging Issues in Early Childhood Education
(IJEIECE) Vol. 1, No. 1, May 2019, pp. 46-60 was put forward by Jackson et al. (2005:
48
403) Reading before entering formal
school
Children who love reading will be able to
does not affect school performance later.
develop creative patterns within
themselves. Children who know how to read when they

Reading activities are related to (1) the enter school, remain superior readers at
least
introduction of the letter (2) the sound of
until the sixth grade.
letters or series of letters, and (3) meaning
Another opinion about how children
or purpose and (4) understanding of read
meaning or purpose based on the context is put forward by David F. Bjorklund (2005:
of
400) who says that there are two
the discourse.
approaches (1). ​A bottom-up process​,
The most crucial issue in developing where
reading skills in early childhood is children learn the components of language
reconstructing the way to learn it so that (letter recognition, the relationship of
children think their learning activities are letters
like to sounds) and then interpret it, while the
playing. About the concerns of some ​ his
second is ​a top-down process. T
circles approach
about teaching reading in early childhood refers to a ​constructivist ​perspective based
 in the left
on the theory developed by Piaget. This
in the left
approach teaches children to pay attention
brain (left hemisphere)
to
. The first major area
the interests of children and the . The first major area
background
was Broca's territory, related to the
of the knowledge they have, which is
language's ability to produce or speak.
related
Broca's territory is responsible for (1) the
to the informa​tion ​that will be learned from
the text given. A to​p-down process production of language, specifically the
approach
pronunciation of words correctly; (2)
puts forward a meaningful context which is
selection of appropriate and reasonable
then known as the ​whole-language
words, including loose words, affixed
approach. L ​ esley Mandel Morrow (1998: words,

241) writing is one of the media to conjunctions; (3) compilation of complete

communicate so that children can convey sentences (not just keywords); (4) storage

their meanings, ideas, thoughts, and of articulation codes to determine the

feelings
sequence of muscle movements needed to
through meaningful strings of
say a word; (5) the sender of the
words.
articulation
Writing is a process that allows
code to the lip, tongue, larynx and other
someone
utensils in speech production
to write down the meaning they have to be
activities.
read by others. The process of writing
The second main area of language
involves thinking, feeling, speaking, and
ability is the Wernicke area located in the
reading. Rita L. Atkinson (1997: 66)
temporal lobe (the area above the ear).
explains that language development has a This

major neurological system area plays a role in understanding words.

located

Aisyah 49 / Development of Thinking Skills in Early Childhood ​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
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
International Journal of Emerging Issues in Early Childhood Education (IJEIECE) Vol. 1, No. 1, May 2019,
pp. 46-60
50
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
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
Big Book
Word
addition, it also pays attention to family High(B1) (A1)
(A2) A1B1 A2B1
characteristics, such as parents' educational
Low (B2) A1B2 A2B2
background, and family socioeconomic
status. Based on these characteristics, there ​Information: A1B1: A group of children with
high-level thinking
are seven kindergartens that meet ​skills who get the reading method with the Big Book.
established characteristics of the seven
A2B1: A group of children with high-level thinking skills who get a method of reading with syllables.
selected kindergartens, based on these
criteria two kindergartens were established. ​A1B2: A group of children with low-level thinking
skills who get the reading method with the
Determination of the two kindergartens ​A2B2: Big Book.
A group of children with low-level thinking
is done randomly, namely by lottery. In this ​skills who get a method of reading with syllables.
way the TK Hikari and the Atomita
Kindergarten were obtained. Determine the
Population can be divided into actual
unit of analysis based on the tendency of
population or target population (target
children's thinking skills. Classifications used
population) and population accessible
for thinking skills variables are high thinking
(accessible population). Thus, it can be
skills and low thinking skills. Determination of
explained that the affordable population in
groups of high and low thinking skills is done
this study is group B Kindergarten in Setu
by using scores of self-developed thinking
District Academic Year 2013/2014. While
skills by adopting the thinking level of the
the population is not affordable, that is, all
theory put forward by Benjamin Bloom which
groups of kindergarten in South Tangerang.
created a taxonomy which was later revised
Aisyah 51 / Development of Thinking Skills in Early Childhood ​Table 1. Summary of Description of
Data on Language Ability
Thinking Skill Statistic Method Keterampilan Big Book
Thinking Skill (A1)

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
Words (A2) High (B​1​) n 16 16 32
2​
x 159.44 154.19 156.81 s 3.20 3.56 4.27 s​ 10.26 12.70 18.22 Low (B​2​) xx​maksimal minimal ​n
165 160 154 146 16 16 165 146 32 x 152.50 139.13 145.81 s 4.05 3.61 7.77 s​2 ​16.40
13.05 60.42 Total xx​maksimal minimal n
​ 158 146 146 131 32 32 158 131 64 x 155.97 146.66
 151.31 s 5.03 8.43 8.33 s​2 ​25.32 71.01 69.42
Information: n = number of samples per group x = Average score for each group S = Standard Deviation
s2 = sample variance for each group
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
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
International Journal of Emerging Issues in Early Childhood Education (IJEIECE) Vol. 1, No. 1, May 2019,
pp. 46-60
52
of the normality test can be seen in the table
2.
Table 2. Normality Test Results
N Lh Lt Remarks ​
Data Group ​ Group A1
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
32 0.1045 0.1566 Normal
analysis, the hypothesis testing is done by
Group
32 0.1472 0.1566 Normal A2 Group A1B1
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
Sum
Variance db ​
Square ​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
db s​ 2 ​
Sample Group ​ i​ log s​i​2 ​(ns​i​-1)
(n​ -1) ​
i​2 ​log ​ i​ s​i​2 ​A1B1 15 10.26 1.01 153.94 15.17
F​ F​
Mean Square ​ hitung ​ tabel ​ 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,
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
Aisyah 53 / Development of Thinking Skills in Early Childhood ​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 ​1 A1B1-A2B1 μA1B1= 159.44
Q​count Q​
​ table μA2B1=
​ 154.19
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
170,00
significance level of 0.05, then H0 is
160,00
150,00
159,44

152,50
154,19 B1​accepted. "The hypothesis is not supported by empirical data". The average
language ​140,00
130,00
139,13

B2
skills of children with the Big Book Method
120,00
and have low thinking skills = 152.50 and ​A1 A2
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
5.25 2.56
Group
2 A1B2-A2B2 μA1B2 = 152.50 μA2B2 = 139.13
Method Thinking ​13.38 2.56
BigBook
Word (A1)
(A2)
Third​, testing the third hypothesis is
known from table 5 the value of Q count =
5.25 and Qtable = 2.56 for the significance
High (B1) Mean 159.44 154.19 156.8 Low (B2) Mean 152.50 139.13 145.82
Mean 155.97 146.66 151.31
International Journal of Emerging Issues in Early Childhood Education (IJEIECE) Vol. 1, No. 1, May 2019, pp. 46-60
54

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 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

Aisyah 55 / Development of Thinking Skills in Early Childhood ​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, 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
International Journal of Emerging Issues in Early Childhood Education (IJEIECE) Vol. 1, No. 1, May 2019, pp. 46-60
56

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.

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

Aisyah 57 / Development of Thinking Skills in Early Childhood ​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
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
International Journal of Emerging Issues in Early Childhood Education (IJEIECE) Vol. 1, No. 1, May 2019, pp. 46-60
58
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 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 letters into

sentences given by teachers or reading /

writing textbooks. If so, the freedom of

the child to develop the ability to speak

Aisyah 59
/ Development of Thinking Skills in Early Childhood ​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
Educational Objectives ​(Complete Ed).
New York: Longman.
Atkinson, Rita L. (1997). ​Pengantar
Psikologi. T​ erjemahan Edisi Kedelapan.
Jakarta: Erlangga.
Bjorklund, David F​. (​ 2005).
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
International Journal of Emerging Issues in Early Childhood Education (IJEIECE) Vol. 1, No. 1, May 2019, pp. 46-60
60

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

.
Portsmouth: N. H. Heinemann

Educational.

Fisher, Bobby. (1991). ​Joyful Learning​: ​A

Whole Language Kindergarten.​ New

Hamshire: Heinemann.

Goodman. (1986).

Language​?. Portmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Harnadek, Anita, (1980).​Critical Thinking

 ​ alifornia: Midwest Pub.
Book Two. C

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.