Abstract：Extensive research studies have recognized the benefits of the acquisition of alphabet knowledge on future literacy achievement.Given the fact that the common core standards have required children to demonstrate certain alphabetic knowledge before entering first grade，it’s necessary for teachers to implement explicit，evidence-based alphabet instruction to meet the anticipated annual grade-level expectations.This research uses a qualitative，narrative-based approach to examine the effectiveness of several research-based pedagogical practices in teaching alphabet knowledge.Teacher interviews，student assessments，and research journals will serve as data collection methods.Finally，implications will be discussed to help educators promote effective literacy practices in teaching emergent literacy skills.
　　Key words：early childhood education;emergent literacy;teaching alphabet knowledge;letter names;letter sounds;action research
　　Alphabet knowledge，defined as a skill set comprising of letter naming，letter sound identification，and letter formation，represents one of the most fundamental literacy skills that should be acquired by emergent readers and writers（Whitehurst & Lonigan，1998）.Recognized as the strongest，most durable predictor of children’s future literacy achievement，alphabet knowledge has been aggrandized as one of the most important skills to be included in the various preschool curriculum frameworks（Adams，1990;Florida Department of Education，n.d.;Massachusetts Department of Education Department，2001）.The result of early letter instruction is patent.While children many years ago were expected to have no or little letter knowledge，nowadays children who attend preschools know an average of 14 lowercase and 18 uppercase letters as they enter kindergarten（Piasta et al.，2012）.
　　Given the strong predictive value of alphabet knowledge in children’s future word reading ability and the heavy emphasis educators and parents has put on early letter instruction，a considerable amount of research have been done in the past three decades to examine the most effective teaching strategies in enhancing children’s letter knowledge acquisition.However，researchers are struggling to reach a consensus on topics such as 1）embedded instruction that features brief teaching interactions that are incorporated into daily classroom activities，or direct instruction that gives students consistent，intensive，and explicit exposure to letter names，sounds，shapes;2）individual instruction or small group instruction;3）separate letter sub-skills instruction or incorporated instruction that teaches letter name，sound，and shape together（Frontczak & Bricker，2004;Education Reform，2017;Dodge et al.，2002;Silva et al.，2010）.Among the numerous letter teaching strategies，the most common ones being researched on are the Enhanced Alphabet Knowledge instruction，which provides a multi-componential letter learning framework that stresses independent practice and frequent exposure to meaningful context;the use of mnemonic devices to enhance letter shape memorization;hands-on activities that appeal to children’s multiple senses;music instruction that aids in the development of phonological awareness;the use of student names that hinges on the principle that young children are egocentric in nature and thus more inquisitive about their own names（Jones et al.，2012;DiLorenzo et al.，2011;Bilodeau，2012;Bolduc，2008）.These strategies，featuring individualized instruction that are paced to the learning needs of different learners，are proved to be more effective than the traditional，one-size-fits-all strategies that rest on the principle that children learn alphabet in the same way and in only one determined order. 　　Many researchers have documented the implementation of these letter teaching strategies and discussed the effectiveness of these strategies（Schultz，2015;Stanley & Finch，2018;Brodin，2015）.In these self-studies，one big activity that features only one teaching strategy is designed for each lesson.Each time，students are expected to complete a new activity either individually or in groups.My action research project is different in a way that I establish a routinized learning environment by incorporating the various teaching methods into one lesson plan.The lesson plan will be consistently adjusted based on student responses.
　　In examining the best literacy practices that are effective for teaching letter knowledge，I incorporated the teaching methods of small group instruction，multicomponential instruction，use of alphabet books，and use of multi-sensory activities into my lesson plans.The three participants of this study were taught together.In each lesson，students received explicit instruction on letter names，sounds，and shapes，practiced what they’ve learned using activities that appeal to their multiple senses，were read an alphabet book，and were provided abundant opportunities to interact with the text.
　　Positionality
　　I am an international student，currently studying at an American college.Being in an education system that requires English to be taught as the second language starting from kindergarten for 12 years，I am curious about how young English speakers acquire their emergent literacy skills in preschools.With the hope of finding the most effective teaching strategies that could help three-，four-，and five-year-olds learn the ABCs，I designed this six-week capstone project（originally an eight-week project but shrunk because of the 2020 worldly pandemic）to investigate how my group of preschoolers will respond to the four alphabet strategies that I’ve chosen.
　　Contextual Factors
　　Community and School Characteristics
　　My study took place in Marietta，a city located in southeastern Ohio at the mouth of the Muskingum River.As the second largest city in Parkersburg-Marietta-Vienna，WV-OH Combined Statistical Area，it has a population of 13，795，consisting of 92.5% of whites，1.78% of two or more races，1.78% of African Americans，1.45% of Latinos，1.39% of American Indians and Alaska Natives，1.04% of Asians，0.0507% of Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders，and 0% of other races（US Census 2018 ACS 5-Year Survey（Table B03002）.With an above-average white population and a below-average non-white population，Marietta has earned a diversity index of 0.416，which is lower than the national average of 0.64（U.S.Census Bureau，2017）.The same race distribution pattern can also be observed in the student population，with 660 degrees earned by white students，which is 34.7 times than the degrees earned by the unknown race group（19 degrees）（U.S.Census Bureau，2017）.In terms of economy，Marietta has a median household income of $35，556，much lower than the national median annual income of 61，397%（U.S.Census Bureau，2017）.It has a poverty rate of 26.3%，much higher than the national average of 13.1%（U.S.Census Bureau，2017）. 　　The educational institution in which I currently work is called Ely Chapman Educational Foundation（ECEF）.It is a non-profit 501（c）3 organization which raises revenue primarily through grants and donations from public institutions and individuals（Ely Chapman Education Foundation，2017）.Located beside several educational institutions such as Marietta College，Betsy Mills Club，and YMCA，ECEF benefits educationally and economically from building and maintaining partnerships with them.In addition to the preschool，ECEF also offers after-school programs for K-8，talented program for 3-8，summer food service program for youth from 1 to 18，and several summer learning programs（Ely Chapman Education Foundation，2017）.Economically，over a half of the ECEF students are from lower income families，with over 45% of them receiving financial aids in order to attend ECEF programs in 2014（Ely Chapman Education Foundation，2017）.In terms of ethnicity，all students in this building are white and speak English，except two middle school students of Chinese descent who speak both English and Chinese（Ely Chapman Education Foundation，2017）.Despite the lack of racial diversity，the institution has made an effort to introduce students to different cultures.For example，in the main hallway，a bronze statue featuring an Indian god and a wood sculpture depicting an African man distinct from all the other artifacts.Also，in the ECEF library，literature featuring different cultures and characters are displayed on the bookshelves.A shelf of teacher’s manuals offers information on teaching students with ADHD，Asperger syndrome，Autism，learning disabilities along with a repertoire of activities that could benefit students with diverse needs.Further，in the 2018 summer camp，students had chances to explore lands and communities around the North and South Poles，learn about cultures and political ideals of Olympic Games host countries，and trace back to the ancient Roman and Greek cultures（Ely Chapman Education Foundation，2017）.
　　Community and School Characteristics：Implications
　　The geographical location of ECEF allows many effective partnerships to happen.For example，many Marietta College education and leaderships students （including me）are gaining valuable internship and work-study experiences at ECEF.
　　Recently，a group of Physician Assistant students are offering ECEF students lesson sessions on understanding human bodies.While providing a platform for college students to transform different areas of knowledge and theories into project-based，meaningful actions，ECEF could also benefit from interacting with this diverse body of educators both educationally and economically.Further，YMCA，several nearby elementary schools and Marietta College partner with ECEF’s summer camp program by offering physical space，educational resources campers and camp counselors.The dense distribution of these partnered institutions allows campers and counselors to have sessions in one building while eating lunch in another.It also allows them to get access to educational resources in walking distances.Overall，an effective educational partnership could enhance the support of quality education，provide evaluation services that could benefit research progress and teaching services，and keep the flow of knowledge and expertise.While working in this preschool setting，I will always act as a mediator between the preschool and the college，making sure that an effective exchange of information and knowledge could occur. 　　Classroom Characteristics
　　This preschool consists of one teacher and six children with an age range from three to five.Within this group of preschoolers，five of them are from low-income families and three of them have received some form of financial assistance from ECEF.According to my cooperating teacher，their parents seldom provide home-based instructions and don’t usually seek educational opportunities for their children.As a result，most of the kids came to the preschool with almost no knowledge of literacy and math（shown on the preschool entry assessment results）.The preschool has tried to enhance parental involvement by hosting holiday parties，field trips，and summer talent shows.The communications between teacher and parents were usually carried out in an informal fashion.When the parents pick up their kids from the school，the teacher would share what she has observed throughout the day，what improvement the student is making，and what behavioral and learning issues parents need to be aware of.Also，on a regular basis，the teacher would send home some of her students’ work samples，along with comments on what they have learned during class and how their skills have improved.
　　For the sake of establishing a developmentally appropriate physical environment that facilitate both self-learning and small-group instruction efficiency，this preschool classroom thrives to create a harmonious balance between soft and hard textures，intrusion and seclusion areas，and risk and safe activities（Gestwicki，2007）.First，students are provided with soft，responsive sensory stimulations by touching，feeling，and manipulating soft items such as stuff animals，carpet，dramatic play costumes，sand，play dough，and soft lightning.In contrast，items such as wood floors，learning center props，wood blocks，and hardboard picture books offer unyielding stimulations.Second，a carpeted circle time area that serves the purposes of whole-group activities and story times foster peer interaction skills and creativity.Four teacher-monitored learning stations at the center of the classroom serve as both an intrusion and seclusion area where students could either receive one-on-one/small group instructions or engage in parallel and solitary plays.Students rotate centers every 15 minutes with the guidance of teacher.Along the walls are several independent，clearly divided learning centers involving themes such as music，dramatic play，math，creative arts，and writing.To avoid having all active centers in one part of the classroom and all quiet centers in the other part，an active center is placed next to a quiet center.Students enjoy free play and engage in self-paced learning in these seclusion areas.Third，in the gym attached to the preschool classroom，students are encouraged to engage in challenging physical tasks such as kicking and climbing under careful teacher supervision.By allowing trial-and-error time in which students solve problems without being intervened by adults，the teacher promote resilience，which is an important socio-emotional skill of bouncing back from adversity in students.Besides adding some elements of risk in the preschool classroom，the teacher also pays attention to safety instructions to help students avoid potential dangers and diseases. For example，the teacher would explicitly teach steps of washing hands and eating snacks.She also incorporates safety instruction into classroom routines by having students sing a “line-up” song before gym time. 　　Overall，the preschool does an excellent job in setting up an organized，resourceful，and safe physical environment in which children are free to explore themselves with little consequences.Hazards such as electronic devices，thumbtacks，and disinfectant wipes are kept in places where children could not access.Children’s books are kept away from the children which may keep these resources in good condition for future students.
　　The preschool teacher has established clear classroom routines and stick with them.For example，during circle times，the teacher would help students identify the date and weather of that day，teach counting skills，and go over some classroom rules.Between station and gym times，the teacher would engage students in some brain break physical activities.Before nap time，students would go to the bathroom and listen to a story.While lining up，the teacher and the students would sing a “line-up” song together.For classroom management strategies，the teacher uses the “one two three，eyes on me” phrase to get student attention.When students demonstrate unacceptable behaviors，she would explicitly state the reason for not doing so.If the misbehaviors still exist，the teacher would use quiet time as a negative punishment.
　　Classroom Characteristics：Implications
　　The socio-economic status of this group of preschoolers reflect the overall high poverty rate of the whole town.According to various research articles，children from lower-income families usually have a much lower score than their peers from higher-income households in social-emotional skills，vocabulary，literacy and math skills（Halle et al.2009）.Without early intervention，these children become vulnerable，reflected in their below-average test scores，high school graduation rates，and college enrollment rates（Duncan & Magnuson，2005）.Fortunately，an effective preschool program could narrow this achievement gap by providing children with foundational academic skills as well as social abilities.While working with this group of preschoolers，I need to first keep in mind the notion that these kids are more dependent on an intentional emergent literacy curriculum to achieve future academic success than their middle-class peers.In Marietta，most children go to play-based preschools operated by nonprofit organizations，my emergent literacy program which intentionally teach students essential alphabetic knowledge could act as a game changer.Also，in order to help these children grasp alphabetic skills，I need to get their parents involved.As a part of my program，I will create three take-home alphabetic activities that target on students’ interests and needs.By involving parents in their children’s learning，the school and parents work together as allies to enhance students’ academic skills as well as nurture students’ innate urge to learn. 　　Based on what I observed in the first week of internship，I found the lack of student interests in picture books and the almost absence of student names in written form as two problems I will address in order to improve the quality of my literacy program.First，to stimulate students’ enthusiasm in picture books，especially in alphabet books，I will first work with the cooperating teacher to rearrange books by topics so that students could easily get access to the type of books they want.On a regular basis，I will share an alphabet book that features beautiful illustrations and rhythmic text.During read-alouds，I will also engage children in discussions about the illustrations.Then，I will design alphabet-related activities based on the book they’ve read.This way，picture book read-aloud is no longer an isolated activity but well embedded into a literacy program.Second，one of the first steps to introduce preschoolers to literacy is through teaching their names.Piaget（1951）mentions that since preschoolers demonstrate egocentrism，a characteristic displayed under Piaget’s preoperational stage of cognitive development that features self-oriented thinking，it is an effective strategy to teach children letter names and sounds by using their names.When providing direct instruction，I will constantly use children’s names，especially their names’ initial letters，as a teaching tool to memorize letter names and sounds.For example，I may have students point out all the “e”s in the name Catherine.While doing guided activities，I will have students create a wall decoration including their own names.
　　Student Characteristics
　　The preschool classroom constitutes of four boys and two girls，with one three-year-old，three four-year-olds，and two five-year-olds.This group of students features single ethnicity（white）and speaks the same language（English）.All of their families celebrate traditional American holidays and none of them are religious.
　　Although no student has a documentation of special needs，two of them who exhibit an established pattern of aggressive behavioral responses are suspected to have emotional/behavioral disorders and will take a diagnostic test this summer. During the two weeks of observation and instruction，I’ve seen more than five cases of fighting between these two kids happened in the gym.Every time after an aggressive outburst，it takes more than a half hour to calm them down.If the fighting happens in the classroom，the teaching progress will be interfered. 　　Based on the preschool entrance assessment data，one three-year-old girl didn’t show any knowledge of alphabet and four of the rest five students（one girl and three boys）know less than five letters，regarding their sounds and names.The letters the four students knew in common are a and b，supporting the letter-order hypothesis，which states that letters appearing earlier in the alphabet string are usually learned earlier than letters appearing later in the alphabet string（Justice et al.2006）.One student，whose first name starts with a “w”，had mastered the letter w.The early mastery of this difficult letter that comprised of this child’s first name illustrates the own-name advantage hypothesis（Justice et al.2006）.Compared to these five students，one five-year-old had already knew 24 of the letters，with only confusion between “b” and “d”.In terms of writing，the four students’ writings appear to be linear，letter-like formations which communicate meanings（assessed through having students write freely and then asking them what they were writing about）.The three-year-old’s writing demonstrates random marks.The five-year-old could already write his name and some simple words such as “cat”.
　　Based on my cooperating teacher，this group of students demonstrates a predilection in rhythmic songs and books.On a daily basis，she played rhythmic movement songs during brain break times.Within the first two weeks，three students have come over and asked me to read nursery rhyme books of their own choice（usually the Peekaboo series）.While I was reading，they usually mimicked the rhyming sounds.
　　They also show a deep interest in drawing.On each day，the teacher would set up a drawing center with different kinds of papers and drawing mediums.
　　Student Characteristics：Implications
　　Various drawing activities enhance skills that are necessary for letter learning.By providing chances toward open-ended exploration of different textures，colors，shapes，lines，and forms，children are gradually developing spatial analysis skills and hands-eye coordination，which both serve as the indispensable skill foundation of reading and writing letters.During instruction，I would create letter dotted tracing activities that could boost students’ muscle memory in forming letters.I would also use squishy bags to improve students’ letter recognition，pincer grasp，and fine motors skills by engaging senses.
　　Literature Review
　　Alphabet knowledge（AK），according to Piasta and Wagner（2010），comprises of the sub-skills of recognizing letter names，producing letter sounds，and writing letter forms.Although it is sometimes considered as a unitary construct，Drouin，Horner，and Sondergeld（2012）argue that performing alphabetic tasks requires a full spectrum of skills such as the coordination between gross and fine motor skills（for writing letters and point at letters）and long-term memory（for retrieving letter knowledge）.It is not surprising to see alphabet knowledge represent a key component of emergent literacy because since forty years ago，an extensive amount of research studies has confirmed a durable，longitudinal relationship between alphabet knowledge acquisition and student literacy achievement（Adams，1990，Storch & Whitehurst，2002，Whitehurst GJ & Lonigan，1998）.Also，given that letters are the fundamental building blocks of an alphabetic writing system，learning alphabet offers a common ground for teachers and students to discuss some more advanced literacy skills.In addition，researches have proved that preschoolers and kindergarteners who are lacking alphabet knowledge instruction would be left behind in reading acquisition，vocabulary，reading fluency，and comprehension skills，and thus are more likely to be diagnosed as having reading disabilities（Gallagher et al.，2000;Torgesen，2002）. 　　Due to its significance，alphabet knowledge acquisition has been recognized by state curriculum frameworks and pre-school institutions as an essential learning goal to achieve at the end of the school years.For example，the Florida and Massachusetts Department of Education have incorporated letter name/sound/form teaching into their literacy standards，as required by the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act（Florida Department of Education，n.d.;Massachusetts Department of Education Department，2001）.Also，Head Start programs have set standards，which require preschoolers and kindergarteners to identify at least 10 letter names and develop an awareness of letters as individual symbols（U.S.Department of Health and Human
　　Services & Administration for Children and Families，2003）.
　　Since the purpose of this research paper is to find out the effective strategies for teaching letter knowledge，in this literature review section，I will provide a synthesis of research findings to justify the instructional methods I will use for this action research，including the use of multicomponential alphabet instruction，small-group instruction，alphabet books，and multisensory activities.Even though there is a lack of consensus regarding the most effective teaching strategies for teaching alphabet knowledge，it has been widely acknowledged that inflexible instructional sequences and isolated letter instruction with contrived scripts will not yield ideal educational outcomes（Piasta & Wagner，2010;McKay & Teale，2015）.And recently，a substantial number of researches，both empirical and theoretical have revealed the effectiveness of some alphabetic instruction techniques on the learning outcome of diverse student populations.
　　Integrated Letter Instruction
　　Several researchers have suggested a multicomponential alphabet program in which letter formation，recognition，and production to be taught together（Silva et al.2008;Piasta et al.2010）.As researches which support an integrated letter instruction became increasingly prevalent，the traditional method that features isolated，one-letter-per-week instruction becomes questionable.A traditional method usually presents letters sequentially on a weekly basis，characterized by teaching techniques that promote the three alphabet knowledge sub-skills in an isolate fashion as well as a disconnection from continuous texts with insufficient chances for students to practice letter skills in authentic contexts.According to Reutzel（2015）： 　　It turns out that teaching alphabet knowledge to young children，something That ostensibly seems easy to teach in the minds of many laypersons and even other K–12 educators，is actually quite a complex，abstract task for young children to achieve（p.16）.
　　A time-consuming，isolated letter instruction wastes students an extensive amount of time on “experiencing” the letter，without consideration of the ultimate goals of teaching letters，which is to promote students’ development of reading and writing skills as well as the understanding of alphabetic principle.
　　Researchers refute the idea of teaching letter name，sound，and formation separately，given the reasons that these skills are reciprocal and that the quick mastery of one of the three sub-skills could not be achieved without the parallel advances in the other two sub-skills.Below，I will discuss how letter name，sound，and formation interweave together to enhance student letter knowledge in three sections.
　　Letter names and letter formation
　　The acquisition of letter name provides background knowledge for understanding alphabetic principle（there is a systematic relationship between spoken sounds and written letters），transitioning students from using visual-cue strategy to using phonetic-cue strategy and ultimately developing the phonological conception of print，an understanding that spoken words can be represented by printed words.When students have learned some letter names，they begin to demonstrate invented spelling that features an over-reliance on letter names in spelling words（Foulin，2005）.For example，students may spell the word why as y because of the identical sound between the two.Also，based on Foulin（2005），rather than using one letter to represent one phoneme，children would omit vowels through using one consonant to replace the CV syllable（ex：bl for bell）and would use one vowel to replace the long vowel spelling patterns（ex：da for day）.To be more specific，Treiman（1993）concluded that the over-use of letter names in spelling occurs more frequently for liquid consonants such as r and l，but less frequently for nasals such as m and n and fricatives such as s and f.The emergence of invented spelling，which is heavily dependent on the acquisition of the interwoven skills of writing letters and naming letters，could serve as an evidence that students have developed an awareness of letter-sound correspondence.
　　Letter formation aids letter sounds and names
　　The promoting effect of writing letter practice on letter sound & name skills has been verified.As proposed by Aram（2005），providing children opportunities to write letters could help construct knowledge of letter sounds and names because it allows children to concentrate on unique features of each letter in order to distinguish them from others.Likewise，Gibson et al.（1962）state that children identify letters better by paying attention to the physical features of letters such as lines，curves，orientation，and degree of closure while writing letters.Further，Longchamp et al.（2005） 　　contend that having students write letters promote identification of letters and letter memorization.In the study by Anna et al.（2014），one way that letter formation could facilitate letter sound and name knowledge is purposed.By studying the visual processing patterns of emergent readers who were given alphabet books to read，Anna et al.（2004）found that children with more letter formation knowledge tended to fixate on distinctive physical features of letters with a short duration and subsequently learn more letters.The familiarization of letter formation，which usually come from a frequent exposure to various types of print，allows children to allocate more cognitive resources to develop letter sound/name recognition skills.With the solid support of these research findings，letter instruction programs such as Enhanced Alphabet Knowledge（EAK）instruction provide letter formation practices accompanied with letter name and sound instruction，which turned out to be highly effective teaching techniques.
　　While teaching letter sounds and names provides students a deeper understanding of the phonemical components of an alphabetic writing system，instruction on letter formation promotes students’ knowledge of its graphemic component.A letter instruction program that features a systematic interweaving of both graphemes and phonemes raises students’ awareness that letters could represent small sound units in a predictable way and therefore facilitate students’ understanding of the phonological nature of print（Ferreiro，1986）.By constructing a link between letter writing with letter sound & name recognition，students actively generate and revise ideas that govern the rule of writing，progressing towards conventional literacy practices（Bissex，1980）.
　　Letter names and sounds
　　Letter name knowledge serves as a precursor and an important facilitator of letter sound recognition skills.In the study by Burgess and Lonigan（1998），a compelling positive correlation between concurrent average scores in letter name knowledge and letter sound knowledge has been found.There are several reasons to explain this phenomenon.First，given the fact that some letters can be represented by more than one sound and that some sounds have various ways of representation，teachers would find a hard time discussing letters consistently if students have deficient knowledge of the 26 alphabet symbols.Second，Treiman et al.（1997）purposed the letter-name pronunciation effect，hypothesized that children tend to learn those letters earlier for which the letter name is in the letter’s pronunciation.Later in the study by Justice et al.（2006），this effect was substantiated.While some letter sounds can be found in the initial phoneme of the letter name which followed by a vowel sound such as b，c，d，g，j，and k，other letters appear at the second phoneme of the letter name that preceded by a vowel sound such as f，l，m，n，and r.Therefore，letter names could serve as a clue to aid letter sound recognition.Additionally，phoneme analysis skill could be enhanced as a by-product while students are extracting letter sounds from names（Foulin，2005）.As Adams（1990）purposes，since there is a tight association between the names of most letters and their sounds，children’s letter sound and name learning are actually occurring simultaneously. 　　However，although the facilitative effect of letter name knowledge on letter sound recognition is seldomly refuted，some research evidences failed to support that letter name is a necessary prerequisite for learning letter sounds（Foulin，2005）.In fact，sometimes teacher teach letter names before letter sounds out of the reason that acquiring letter sound knowledge requires more advanced skills such as isolating individual phonemes（Rathvon，2004，p.123）.Therefore，Caravolas et al.（2001）suggest educators to abandon the fettered first-name-then-sound approach.Further，a cross-linguistic study has purposed that teaching letter sounds before names won’t cause impairment to later literacy achievement（Bruck et al.，1997）.
　　Based on the research studies I discussed above，numerous integrated，multicomponential letter instruction programs have initiated and are proven as incredibly effective after implementation.For example，Itchy’s Alphabet，by providing educators with sufficient materials and lessons，encourages students to make letter-shape-sound connection as well as enhancing beginning writing and spelling skills（Larson，2001）.Enhancing Alphabet Knowledge（EAK）instruction is another integrated emergent literacy program that features brief and explicit three-step letter instruction：1）teach letter name and sound;2）apply letter name and sound knowledge in meaningful context;and 3）practice letter form（Jones et al.，2012）.An EAK program teaches through multiple distributed instructional cycles，allowing teachers to adjust the organizational patterns for instruction based on students’ needs as well as research-based letter learning advantages（Jones et al.，2012）.
　　Small Group Instruction
　　As defined by Dodge et al.（2002），small group instruction serves the purpose of implementing brief activities to a limited number of children.A small group literacy instruction should be brief，focusing mainly on skill practices.Factors such as children’s individual needs and age determine the size of the group（Dodge et al.，2002）.For instance，“[T]three-year-olds will benefit more from informal small-group settings of two to four children.A small group for older preschoolers can be three to six children”（Dodge et al.，2002）.
　　The benefits of small group instruction on promoting alphabet knowledge have been substantiated.For example，a research by Wharton-McDonald et al.（1998）reveals that literacy instruction in a small group context is more effective than other grouping methods in strengthening student letter name knowledge.Moreover，Abu Al-Rub（2017）proves that students in small groups learn emergent literacy skills in an impressively faster pace than those not being instructed in small groups.Regarding alphabet knowledge，compared to the baseline assessment where slightly less than 50% of the participants were on the Forerunner 3 stage in the Developmental Continuum，none of the students were in the Forerunner 3 stage in the second assessment，showing that the task of identifying two letters alike was no longer challenging for them after several weeks of instruction（Abu Al-Rub，2017）.While in the baseline assessment there were 9% of participants in the Stage 3 level of the continuum，which is the stage of making letter-sound correspondence，the number increased to 36% in the second assessment（Abu Al-Rub，2017）. 　　There are numerous benefits of teaching in small groups.First，Amendum et al.（2009）state that when applying small group instructions，students give more active responses，which increase their motivation to participate in class discussions.Second，Marzano et al.（2001）mentions that small group instruction offers students with diverse reference points as students observe how their peers learn.Third，according to Wilson et al.（2012），when having reading lessons in small groups，students learn more vocabulary words and comprehend text better due to their teachers’ abilities to differentiate their instructions to attend to student needs and give immediate，individualized feedbacks.Fourth，the high student engagement and the high incidence of peer teaching ensure an efficient use of the limited instructional time（Jones，2007）.Fifth，by using collaborative learning，a type of small group instruction in which students work as a group to complete a common learning task，students，teachers facilitate students’ social-emotional skills such as conflict resolution and mutual respect，target on the 21st century skill of communication，give students exposure to basic problem-solution scenarios，and help students develop a positive attitude towards the class（Akcay，2016）.Although collaborative learning has seldom occurred in a preschool setting（and never occurred in the Ely Chapman preschool program），there are several existing research projects proving the feasibility of implementing a collaborative learning model in a preschool setting（Akcay，2016）.In fact，Doymus et al.（2005）believe that cooperative learning model can be successfully implemented to any age groups.
　　Compared to individualized instruction，Becker et al.（1982）contend that small group instruction is more preferable because of the longer time spent on direct instruction，effective pacing，more frequent compliment，and more prompting.In the study by Fink and Sandall（1980），although an equal high rate of on-task behaviors were found between the small group and the individual group，the researchers still advised teachers，including intervention specialists to increase the frequency of small group instruction due to the higher efficiency regarding the number of instructional minutes a teacher would need to teach every student in the classroom.As the result shows，a teacher spent 4.49 minutes to teach a group of four students，compared to the 11.39 minutes that the same teacher took to teach each student in one-on-one fashion（Fink & Sandall，1980）. 　　The Use of Alphabet Books
　　Alphabet books，different from other children literature genres，usually lack a storyline and are designed to attract children’s attention to letters（Even et al.2009）.While most alphabet books present letters in a sequence from A to Z，with each page highlighting one letter accompanied with a word/picture that begins with the letter，some alphabet book series such as AlphaTales introduce one letter per book，with text saturated with alliteration.With alphabet books，children see letters，words，and pictures tightly related.
　　The contributions of alphabet books to the development of alphabet books have been proved（Hatcher et al.2006）.In general，alphabet book sharing promotes children ‘s learning in letter shapes，names，and sounds，as well as metalinguistic phrases such as “ ___ is for ____”（Smolkin & Yaden，1992）.There are several explanations for this correlation.First，alphabet books with only one letter been presented in an enlarged bold font on one page or in one book are more effective than storybooks in attracting children attention toward letters（Evens et al.2008）.Second，words that begin with the letter being introduced accompanied with corresponding illustrations reinforce letter-sound correspondence（Evens et al.，2013）.These illustrations，when presented in a clear way，could help children think flexibly about the alphabet.However，it is noteworthy that sometimes ambiguous illustrations such as ones with multiple meanings could mislead the children as well as their parents（Smolkin & Yaden，1992）.Another concern is that anthropomorphic figures with actions could distract children attention from the beginning sound that the picture makes，making the alphabet book less effective in introducing letter knowledge（Verhallen & Bus，2011）.Similarly，an alphabet book sharing activity that strive to incorporate multiple objectives（ex：teach reading comprehension，socio-emotional skills）besides teaching letters，would have a diminished letter teaching effectiveness（Bradley & Jones，2007）.Third，according to Routman（1991），alphabet books could serve as a route to assist children in organizing their writing and could stimulate children’s motivation to write.
　　Teachers，in order to maximize students’ letter learning efficiency，should be careful in terms of picking high-quality alphabet books and using alphabet book sharing strategies.In terms of choosing alphabet books， Bradley and Jones（2007）provide a list of things teachers should avoid including：1）words that begin with silent letters such as “knight”;2）a picture with multiple ways of representation;3）graphically altered letters that would confuse students in identifying their distinctive physical features;and 4）the overall structure of an alphabet book that doesn’t emphasize letter instruction.Given the main focus of teaching alphabet knowledge，an alphabet book should minimize features that could either distract children’s attention from letters or confuse children.When talking about teaching strategies，several researchers have made feasible，research-based suggestions.First，Gibson et al.（1962）found that emergent readers tend to focus on letter features that are unnecessary in distinguishing letter forms.Being unable to identify key features of letters，it is possible for children to frequently confuse letters that are in the similar formation（ex：C and G）.Again，avoiding exposing children to graphically altered letters may decrease the incidence of letter feature misidentification.Second，teachers are advised to stress line terminations when introducing letter features because it is proved to be the single most important feature to help students identify letters（Fiset et al.2008）.According to this group of researchers，“the inferior termination of the uppercase C clearly allows the discrimination of this letter form from the uppercase letters G，Q and O，and is in fact sufficient for the correct identification of ‘C’”（Fisert et al.，2008）.Third，Bradley & Jones（2007）have found that teachers have different book sharing styles and tend to stick with one of them.While some teachers go through an alphabet book quickly without any interactions，some teachers demonstrate frequency use of book sharing techniques such as prompting and question asking.Researchers have proved the benefits of teacher-student interaction while sharing an alphabet book.For example，Combs（2002）suggests teacher to pause and explicitly discuss the letter features with children and have children fill in their names. 　　Use of Multisensory Activities
　　Human brains are evolved to learn and develop in an environment saturated with multiple sensory stimuli（Shams & Seitz，2008）.Various senses overlap and interact with each other to perceive the world.It is vital for people to use multiple senses to acquire knowledge because as Gibson and Rader（1969）state，humans，while could perceive only a certain part of information using one sense，could grasp the whole structure when integrating various senses together.
　　Researchers have found that multisensory activities support students’ learning of letter names and sounds（Gahan，2019;Campbell et al.，2008）.The dual coding theory offers an explanation for the promotive effects of multisensory approaches to reading instruction（Paivio，1991）.It states that human brains process information in two separate systems：a verbal system that decodes linguistic information and a nonverbal system for nonverbal information in the form of mental images（Paivio，1991）.Based on Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence theory，which believes in specifying human intelligence into different modalities，teachers，if using teaching strategies that not only stimulating children’s linguistic system but also engaging children’s multisensory modalities，could enhance letter teaching efficiency（Gardner，1999）.In a study by Hulme et al.（1987），the researchers conducted a series of experiments to investigate the effect of letter tracing activities on children’s paired-associated letter learning.They first used letter tracing activities to instruct 16 preschoolers in letter names and found a positive learning effect.In the next three experiments，they taught 38 seven-to-eight-year-olds on letter names accompanied with abstract letterlike forms and found significant improvement.They hypothesized that the interaction of linguistic and visual learning styles allows children to conceptualize and apply information with higher efficiency（Hulme et al.，1987）.People process information through various modalities.By using one learning pathway to compensate for a specific modality difficulty，they could establish an intricate mental framework，more effective than if using one modality to process information.In letter instruction，by activating students’ visual and auditory modalities，they “establish（es）the association between letter units and their sounds in both directions”（Flynn，2005，p.20）.With frequent association between the shape and sound of a letter，students quickly build familiarity with the letter. 　　Methods
　　In the educational setting，action research is a process in which an educator or a group of educators use a variety of evaluative，reflective，and analytical research techniques to explore an area of concern and develop new strategies to address the concern（Ferrance，2000）.With the intent of examining their own educational practices as well as bridging the gap between theories and practices，teachers enter an inquiry cycle containing five steps：1）identifying a problem area;2）collecting the data;3）organizing and interpreting the data;4）deriving action plans based on the findings;and 5）assessing the effects of actions improving them in the right of evaluation（Ferrance，2000）.In this paper，the area of concern I’ve identified is letter instruction in preschool，followed by the research question of，“What are some of the strategies and practices that are effective in teaching alphabet knowledge？”
　　Procedure
　　Five participants are eligible for this study（in pseudonym）：Rhett（three-year-old girl），Jade（four-year-old girl），Max（four-year-old boy），Waylon（four-year-old boy），and Noah（five-year-old boy）.Steven，another five-year-old boy in this classroom didn’t participate in this study because he had already known all the letter names and sounds and could write many short words.During the first three weeks，the five participants，split up into two groups，were taught on every Tuesday，Thursday，and Friday，from 9：30am to 10：00am（session 1）and from 10：00am to 10：30am（session 2）.However，after the virus outbreak，Jade and Max no longer went to the preschool.During the next three weeks，I taught Rhett，Waylon，and Noah in one group on Tuesdays，Thursdays，and Fridays from 10：00am to 10：30am.
　　In the literature review，I’ve discussed four strategies that I would implement during the instructional period，including 1）integrated letter instruction;2）small group instruction;3）use of alphabet books;4）use of multisensory activities.First，adopted from the EAK instruction method，my instruction began by introducing and having students orally practice the letter name and letter sound.Then，I provided students with opportunities to recognize the letter in a meaningful context.Frequently，I read some common words/names of other students or teachers and had students give me a thumbs up if they could identify the letter sound we just talked about at the beginning of the word and a thumbs down if they could not identify that letter sound.This can take many forms of variations.For example，when teaching the letter p，I showed them a pizza prototype with many toppings and asked students to give me a thumbs up if the topping begins with the sound /p/ or the letter p，and a thumbs down if it doesn’t begin with the sound /p/ or the letter p.Accompanied with this letter sound practice，I also engaged students’ multiple senses by doing a letter hunt around the classroom or a letter search.For instance，when teaching letter o，I asked students to find as many letter o as they could in the classroom.After that，I explained the letter structure and gave students chances to practice by either tracing the dots on the worksheet or writing on their sensory bags.Next，I read an AlphaTales alphabet book for the letter we are talking about.Finally，students were required to complete a letter-related sensory activity，which could be a move-like-a-letter activity，a craft activity，or a letter-match activity.Every Friday，I designed another multisensory activity to review the previously learned letters.Sometimes this would be done by my cooperating teacher. 　　Data Collection
　　The data was collected in the forms of student pre- and post-assessment and reflective research journals.I will describe each of them in detail in the following two paragraphs.
　　In the first week，I completed a quantitative pre-assessment in a one-on-one fashion.Each student was assessed on three skills：letter naming，letter sound recognition，and letter formation.In the first stage，a single-page assessment sheet with two groups of mixed-sequenced letters（one group for all 26 uppercase letters and one for all lowercase letters）was shown to the student.Students was asked to say the name of each letter presented on this assessment sheet.Second，sound（s）represented by each letter were read to the student，whose job was to recognize the letter that matches the sound（s）.For letters with two sounds，both sounds were presented.Third，a separate blank paper was given for the student to write as many letters as he/she can.The assessment results from the first two stages were recorded on a separate evaluation sheet and the writing assessment result would be the student writing itself.Considering the relatively short attention span of preschoolers，I had students complete the assessment in two sessions and rewarded children with stickers for completing the assessment（the reward is embedded into the classroom reward system and is approved by the cooperating teacher）.On the Friday in the sixth week（the eighth week is what I originally planned），a same-format post-assessment was given to the same group of students individually.To evaluate how well my participants have improved and how effective the teaching strategies are，the pre- and post-assessment results would be compared.However，since it is impossible to teach all 26 letters during six-week of instruction，I eliminated letters that the students would not get a chance to learn.More than comparing statistical results in terms of the number of letters they could name，the number of letter sounds they could recognize，and the number of letters they could write，I analyzed the pattern of letter learning represented by the assessment results by taking a look at which letters they tend to grasp earlier，which strategies are used for teaching each letter and their impacts on letter learning.
　　Based on Borg（2001），given the underlying principle that research can be emotional，a research journal could not only serve the purpose of recording objective facts but also be used as a self-reflection forum where personal thoughts are identified and a systematic investigation on researchers’ own behaviors is carried out.In this research project，a research journal entry was completed on a weekly basis.The first part of the journal entry is a description of my lesson，constituting of the educational techniques I incorporated into the lesson plan and anecdotal records of both student-teacher interactions and interactions among students.The second part is a personal reflection on the parts I did well，things that are challenging，and areas I could improve.To interpret this qualitative data，I first used anecdotal records as evidence of how students respond to each teaching strategy.In addition，the self-reflection part could offer an insight into what challenges I have met when implementing the teaching techniques and how student responses toward these techniques change as I try out variations of them. 　　Results
　　The pre- and post-assessment results on letter name assessments are shown in Table 1，Figure 1，and Figure 2.Before implementing this six-week letter instruction，Rhett，Waylon，and Noah knew no more than five letters，both uppercase and lowercase.After being provided letter instructions，every participant could identify more letters than before.Compared to the average numbers of letters the three participants could identify at the beginning of this ABC learning program（M=4.00 for uppercase letters and M=3.33 for lowercase letters），there is a dramatic increase in the average numbers of letters the three participants were able to identify six weeks later（M=12 for uppercase letters and M=11 for lowercase letters）.While all the three participants have demonstrated growth in their letter recognition skills，there are a marked difference in their learning rates that positively correlate with the participants’ ages.While Rhett，the three-year-old girl，could identify four more uppercase letters and three more lowercase letters than she did six weeks ago，Waylon，the four-year-old boy has learned six more uppercase and seven more lowercase letter names.Noah，who is five years old，showed the greatest growth in successfully identifying 14 more uppercase letters and 13 more lowercase letters than he could do six weeks ago.Further，compared to the standard deviations for the pre-assessment results（S.D.=0.82 for uppercase letters and S.D.=1.25 for lowercase letters），the standard deviations calculated from the post-assessment results have climbed to 5.10 for uppercase letters and 5.35 for lowercase letters.It means that while the three participants started from the same starting line，they progressed at very different rates.From this data sample，we could deduce that as a child gets older，s/he would be better at learning letter names.
　　As recorded in my reflection journals，times devoted to teaching participants letter names were usually when participants demonstrated very few behavioral problems and issues of attention.They were also when the least incidents of student-to-student interactions were observed.It could partly be explained by the sequence of my letter instruction.My lesson structure is adopted from the Enhanced Alphabet Knowledge instruction framework，which suggests teachers put letter name instruction in the first place.Every time before I started my instruction，students were always doing independent works in quiet centers.It drastically reduces student possibility of being distracted and triggered by overloaded stimulations. 　　In my reflection journals，I also mentioned how the AlphaTales book series play a vital role in building students’ familiarity with letters.Each AlphaTale book introduces one letter in a narrative form.The theme letter，both in uppercase and lowercase forms，appears frequently in the text，inviting students for an engaging word hunt.While reading an alphabet book，I stopped intermittently to point out the name of the theme letter.With repeated exposure to the letter and its name，students strengthen the connection between the shape of the letter and its name.If a letter has a name that stands out to my students，they would say it over and over during the day.
　　Based on the pre-assessment results，the letters students know in common are a and b.This finding is in accordance with the letter order hypothesis purposed by Justice et al.（2006），saying that letters appear earlier in the alphabet string are usually learned earlier than those appear later in the alphabet string.Also，what stands out from the pre-assessment results is that Rhett，whose real name contains the letter p，was able to identify the letter p and that Waylon，whose real name begins with the letter w，could identify the letter w.This finding proves the validity of the own name advantage，which states that letters appear in a child’s own name are learned earlier（Justice et al.，2006）.According to Piasta（2014），it is ascribed to singing of the alphabet song，frequent referring to the ABCs，and sharing of alphabet books.In the post-assessment，the letters students could identify in common are a，b，o，and c.Noah，the five-year-old boy，struggled with discriminating between b and d.He misidentified both b and d as letter b.
　　The pre- and post-assessment results of the letter sound identification are shown in Table 2 and Figure 2.The data shows that every participant could identify more letter sounds during the post-assessment than they did in the pre-assessment six weeks ago.In line with the letter name learning pattern，the three participants have shown very different letter sound learning rates，with Rhett demonstrating the least growth and Noah the most growth.This could be partly ascribed to my participants’ various attention span.In my reflection journals，I recorded how Rhett，the three-year-old girl，always lost her attention when I was teaching letter sounds.When I pointed at a letter on the dry erase board to demonstrate the sound（s）the letter represents，she would grab the dry erase board and started to draw her mommy.Noah，who is five years old，was always able to sit still and follow my direction throughout the learning period.Waylon，who is four years old，is somewhere in between.Sometimes he could mimic Rhett to draw on his own，while sometimes he would listen carefully to my demonstration.Since letter sound instruction is always placed in the middle part of my lesson plans，the differences in my students’ attention span greatly contribute to the dramatic fluctuation in their letter sound learning efficiency. In my reflection journals，I mentioned how AlphaTale books serve as a great source for letter sound practice.In each AlphaTale book，there is an interactive page that invites students to search for items that begin with the sound（s）of the letter and a rhyming poem on the final page that is saturated with words beginning with the letter being introduced.Students were always motivated by the word hunt activities and enjoyed listening to me reading the poems. 　　In the post-assessment，the letter sounds my students knew in common are a，t，and p.For the letter sound a，all of them only identified the long vowel /a/ sound，probably because its long vowel sound is identical to its name.This finding supports the letter name pronunciation effect，which purposes that letters are learned earlier when their sounds are in their names（Justice et al.，2006）.
　　The pre- and post-assessment results of the letter formation are shown in Table 3 and Figure 4.All three participants could write a greater amount of letters in the post-assessment than in the pre-assessment.Again，Noah，among the three participants，showed the greatest growth in letter writing skills，with 14 new letters learned.The different learning rates of letter shapes can also be shown in the standard deviation data.While the standard deviation for the pre-assessment is 1.70，meaning that the three participants were at the same starting line，the standard deviation for the post-assessment raised to 5.56，meaning that the three participants have responded very differently to my letter writing instruction and thus have demonstrated very different levels of growth.
　　My reflection journals record a high level of student engagement when physical activities were used.When teaching the letter t，I asked my students to stand up and spread their arms to form the lowercase t.I also asked students to make a stop sign using their hands to form the uppercase T.By incorporating both gross and fine motor skills into students’ letter learning，I gave students a mental break after several letter name and sound practices.Students were having so much fun.They began to explore variations of this body shape by either laying down or hopping around the classroom.
　　I also mentioned in my journals how my students made letter shape substitutions after they have learned multiple letter forms.For example，Noah has experienced a hard time differentiating b and d.He would sometimes use the letter d to substitute the letter b and would also use b to replace d.Also，Waylon would use b to represent the letter h，even when he was tracing the letter.A research by Both-de Vries & Bus（2014）shows that as soon as children are familiar with many letter shapes they begin to mix similar letters up and make substitutions for these letters.
　　The letters all participants could write in common in the post-assessment are i，o，and t.This is probably because of the simplicity of these letters’ shapes and the large amount of connections students could make between the letter shapes and daily items.For example，given the circle shape of the letter o，Rhett could think of a ball that simulates the letter shape o.At the same time，Waylon drew a red sun to represent the letter o. 　　After six weeks of small group，multicomponential instruction that uses alphabet books and multisensory activities，there is a statistically significant enhancement in students’ letter naming skill，letter sound recognition skill，and letter writing skill.Based on the data I collected，three major themes consistently stand out throughout all the data.I will discuss them in the following three sections.
　　Mutlicomponential letter instruction increases student exposure to letters
　　Letters are best learned when students are frequently exposed to them（Treiman et al.2007）.A substantial body of research has either directly or indirectly supported this statement.First，book reading is commonly seen as the most direct way of letter exposure.A research study by Bennett et al.（2002）finds that children who engage frequently in adult-and-child sharing reading activities demonstrate a better alphabet knowledge than those who don’t have much exposure to children’s literature.Second，Justice et al.（2006）suggest that letters that occur in a child’s name（especially as the initial）would be learned earlier and that children with longer names tend to know more letters than those with shorter names.The implication is that exposure to student names as a vital component of the print environment could help students enhance their letter knowledge.
　　Having frequent exposure to letters is especially important for my group of participants.In my reflection journals，I mentioned how my students struggled with remembering the letters being taught.Before each new lesson，I would have a brief one-
　　to-two-minute review session to informally assess how familiar my students were with the letters we have gone through.However，many of them were not able to identify and write the letter.To address this problem，I provided students with an informal assessment immediately after each lesson to see if they have experienced difficulties in mastering the letter being introduced.Based on the informal formative assessment results as well as the various letter learning advantages corroborated by empirical research evidence，I added comprehensive review sessions every Friday to go through letters that students need the most help with.This can be only accomplished if providing brief，explicit，and multicomponential letter instruction that introduces all the critical features of a letter in a 30-minute session.The instructional framework（EAK）that my lesson plans are adapted from lies on the research-supported statement that some letters hold an advantage over others that could determine students’ letter learning sequence（Justice et al.，2006）.It introduces letters at a quicker pace so that letters could be taught through multiple distributed instructional cycles that target the specific needs of students.Comparing to the traditional letter-for-the-week method，which doesn’t allow any repeated letter exposure to happen due to the equal instructional time spent on every letter，this multicomponential EAK model could benefit students’ letter learning by giving students extra time on letters that they find problematic（Jones et al.，2012）. 　　Likewise，teaching students in small groups could ensure a fast letter acquisition rate and individualized instruction that is based on exactly what the students need.First，small group instruction maximizes the time devoted to letter instruction，thus making sure that students could quickly finish the first letter instructional cycle.Compared to whole-group instruction，small group instruction requires less time in classroom management including maintaining discipline，giving instructions，monitoring student works，classroom transition，and many more，allowing teachers to transfer their focus on delivering content，planning learning tasks and offering assessments（Lanning，2002）.When comparing to one-to-one instruction，researches have also proved the advantage of small group instruction in student acquisition rate.In the study by Bertsch（2002），although direct learning opportunities provided by small group instruction are significantly fewer than those offered by one-to-one instruction，students receiving small group instruction learned at a faster pace than those receiving one-to-one instruction.One of the hypotheses that could explain this high effectiveness of small group instruction is observational learning，which occurs when students are retaining the information through observation，and later mimicking behaviors that were reinforced by the teacher.Second，small group instruction is more individualized than whole group instruction，enabling teachers to identify students’ learning needs.As purposed by Jones（2007），small group instruction provides teachers with more opportunities to locate gaps in the students’ alphabet learning，evaluate students’ learning strengths and needs，and perform instructional cycles that focus on specific learning objectives.When assigning my group of students individual letter tracing activities to complete，I could monitor every step my students have done.I could offer them individual feedbacks on where they did well and where they need to improve and even write one letter beside theirs to explain the specific letter shape features.Based on their work samples，I could determine whether they need extra practices on writing this particular letter.
　　When sharing alphabet books，it is beneficial to place greater emphasis on alphabet knowledge
　　According to Bradley & Jones（2011），every teacher has a unique book sharing style and tend to stick with it.There is little research regarding alphabet book talk strategies and their effectiveness.Based on the data I collected，I find that having frequent discussions on alphabet knowledge could yield a better letter learning result. 　　The alphabet book series I used is called AlphaTales.Each AlphaTales book teaches one letter by telling a story that includes many words beginning with the theme letter.Designed specifically to teach young children letters，this book series offers abundant opportunities to get students exposed to letter name，sound and structure.For example，on the top right corner of the cover page，the theme letter is presented in both its uppercase and lowercase form using a conventional font.The title of the book always contains at least two words that begin with the theme letter.For the letter i book，the title would be Iguana on Ice and for the letter b book，the title would be Bubble Bear.Whenever I presented the book cover，students would trace the letters on the top right corner and point to the theme letters in the title.Also，the book has an interactive page full of items，inviting students to find out items that begin with the theme letter.Finally，the book contains a rhyming poem beginning with the sentence：___（the theme letter）is for ____ and _____.During the first week of instruction，I spent a significant amount of time discussing the plot of the book，without much reference to the letter itself.After reading the book，students were excited about the story but failed to pay attention to the letter.When I pointed at an animal and asked them if this animal starts with the theme letter，no response was received.Then，I changed my strategy by separating the book sharing activity into three phases.Before reading，I introduced some basic book concepts such as title，author，and illustrator.I stimulated students’ interests in the theme letter by asking them to identify the theme letters in the title.During reading，I placed significant emphasis on pointing out specific aspects of the alphabet.For example，I would read an alliterative sentence three times and ask students if they could hear the theme letter sound.I also encouraged students to repeat some of the easy alliterative phrases.In addition，I would use book sharing as a wonderful chance to help students discriminate two similar letters.For example，if a word contains both p and d，I would explicitly show my students in what ways these two letters are different and in what ways they look very similar.After reading the story，I would invite my students to do a picture hunt and read them the theme letter poem.After reading，my students and I would have a short discussion on both the story and the theme letter.Alphabet knowledge and reading comprehension were given equal emphasis.By following the three steps，my students were much more involved in this activity than before.While I was reading，they would voluntarily shout out their surprising finding ------ the theme letters in a sentence.By constantly asking them questions about letter features，they would search around the classroom to find the letter，sometimes in their name tags and sometimes on the wall.When doing the formative post-lesson assessments，students were more likely to give me the correct answers regarding the name，sound，and shape of the letter. 　　Multisensory activities enhance alphabet knowledge and motivate students
　　In each of my lessons，I incorporated multiple activities that engage the senses of seeing，hearing，and feeling.The dramatic increase in the number of letters being learned shown in the pre- and post-assessment results has proved the effectiveness of using multisensory activities in facilitating students’ alphabet knowledge.In my reflection journals，I also mentioned how I responded to students’ struggles in retaining letter information by offering regular review sessions before each lesson and how these review sessions that require students’ visual，auditory，and kinesthetic input work fabulously well.Sometimes I provided students with letter puzzles containing three pieces – the top piece has the uppercase letter，the middle piece has a picture that begins with the letter，and the bottom piece has the lowercase form of the letter.Students first analyzed the letter shapes visually，then matched the three puzzle pieces together using fine motor skills，and finally said the letter name and sound out aloud.Other times I moved the learning place to the rug area and invited students to make letters using their bodies.While forming the letters，they were required to shout out the names of these letters.This activity also intertwines the three learning modalities because students needed to visually internalize the postures of the model，use their gross motor skills to regular their body parts，and orally repeat the letter names.The implementation of these multisensory review sessions revealed positive effects on student letter learning almost immediately.After each review session，students could not only remember the letter taught in the new lesson，but also recall the letter learned yesterday or two days ago.Noah，the five years old boy，benefited the most from these multisensory activities because he was always the one that engaged in these activities the most.
　　The benefits of using multisensory activities in letter instruction are revealed in this study，based on my quantitative assessment results as well as journal records.Here I offer some explanations for this research result.First，multisensory learning approach is in line with the principles of the Universal Design of Learning（UDL），which features flexible learning environment that takes into account student learning variability（Metcalf et al.，2009）.Students process and internalize learning materials using visual，auditory，and kinesthetic modalities，with respective strengths in some of these modalities while limitations in others.When learning materials are presented in a multisensory way that makes it accessible to all students regardless of the variety in their learning styles，students could fully utilize their preferred information processing modalities to compensate for their specific information processing difficulties.Second，the importance of giving multisensory activities in classrooms has elevated given that one sensory modality could be activated by another.As suggested by Flynn（2005），“Starting with the teaching of individual letters，the visual and auditory pathways are strengthened by the simultaneous introduction of the motor elements of speech and writing”（p.20）.Also，Thrope & Borden（1985）assert that while the visual and auditory modalities are of the most important sensory receptors，the kinesthetic modality could enhance a person’s visual attention to learning tasks since “multisensory approaches produce superior results in on task behaviors and short-term learning”（p.286）. 　　In Ose’s study（2016），while the effectiveness of multisensory instruction on improving students’ letter identification skills has not be proved，the study reports a high level of engagement and excitement when the participants worked with multisensory materials.In my study，the same phenomenon is recorded in the reflectional journals.At the beginning of the program，I taught my students how to make sensory bags that could be used to practice letters.These sensory bags were used several times throughout the six-week instructional period.Other than having students use sensory bags，I prepared either a traditional letter trace worksheet or a dot trace worksheet to facilitate students’ exploration of the letter features.My students were always excited about this part and some of them could not wait to put their painting shirts on.In the Week 3 journal，I mentioned how my students were easily distracted by the multisensory materials，especially the sensory bags.To address this problem，I had to hide the materials in places my students could not see and stop offering lesson overviews.Also，I would sometimes use these activities as rewards for listening carefully to my instruction.This strategy worked well for the whole group because they were more than ever motivated to learn letters in order to get the rewards.The implication I could deduce from this experience is that by offering students various multisensory experiences，they could engage in letter learning with a high level of motivation.However，it is vital for teachers to make sure that students are manipulating with these multisensory materials at the right time for the intended instructional purpose.They should keep students away from being distracted by the materials and at the same time teach students the appropriate ways of interacting with them.
　　Conclusions/Implications
　　This case study aims to answer the following research question：“what are the most effective teaching strategies for enhancing preschoolers’ alphabet knowledge？” Based on the data collected through pre- and post-assessment results as well as journal entries，I found a dramatic increase in students’ letter naming skills，letter sound recognition skills，and letter writing skills after students have received small-group，multicomponential instructions incorporated with alphabet book sharing and multisensory activities.Given the crucial role alphabet knowledge plays in predicting children’s future literacy achievement and the importance of an early explicit letter instruction in enhancing children’s alphabet knowledge，it is the teacher’s responsibilities to test and implement the best teaching practices in real education settings so that students could reap the maximized benefits from letter instructions（Whitehurst & Lonigan，1998）. 　　This case study generates many implications for student learning，my teaching，and myself.First，my students，though only worked with me for approximately seven weeks，were able to benefit from this explicit letter teaching program with four carefully chosen，research-based teaching strategies implemented.By comparing the pre-assessment results to the post-assessment results，every student was able to identify more letters，recognize and produce more letter sounds，and write more letters.With all these new letters learned，the three students have built a solid foundation for future success in reading and writing.For Noah，this letter learning program helps him thrive in his kindergarten life in the near future.In addition，by looking at the anecdotal records，one could discover an increased level of student engagement in letter learning.These students，both extrinsically motivated by the multisensory activities and intrinsically motivated by a natural desire to participate in the learning process，could pay attention to my instruction for a longer period of time than they could before they received the instruction.Even during non-instruction time，they would sometimes ask me to come over and point at objects that mimic the shape of a letter.Their learning was not limited to formal instructional settings.Second，the results generated from this case study helps me make sound educational decisions for my students.I learned that in order to boost student motivation，a teacher has to help students make as many sensory connections as possible.This will help students build more intricate mental frameworks that allow letter information to be easily retrieved by activating relevant information.These connections could also serve as inklings when students have a hard time recalling letters.Also，the study highlights the significance of alphabet books in facilitating alphabet knowledge.However，an alphabet book sharing activity is not solely about engaging students into another story world full of letter elements ------ it is，when being used appropriately，a meaningful literary experience that focuses on building students’ understanding and knowledge of letters.Alphabet books vary in qualities as well as genres.When picking an alphabet book for students，a teacher should keep the notion in mind that the genre of an alphabet book could influence the way the text is read and the aspects of text being emphasized（Bradley，2007）.Third，as a senior college student and a future teacher，I benefitted from the concepts，ideas，and strategies in my research and the experience of conducting an action research.By doing extensive research on popular letter teaching strategies，I gained an insight into the current trend of preschool letter instruction methods with their own advantages and disadvantages compared to the teaching methods implemented several decades ago.By applying a number of different best practices，I learned how to interpret my students’ responses to my instruction and make necessary adaptations to help them achieve the best educational results.By analyzing the research findings，I am able to determine whether and in what ways I can implement the four strategies within my future student groups.Throughout the research process，I start to appreciate the role of teacher as researcher，who is always flexible and eager to try out new instructional practices to explore the best way of helping students succeed.A teacher researcher should perceive him/herself as an agent of change in the school setting and an director of his/her own professional development. 　　Based on the study results，I would recommend preschool and kindergarten teachers to instruct students in small groups，teach letter names，sounds，and formation in one time period and give students ongoing review sessions，routinely read students an alphabet book and point out letter features specifically，and design activities that engage students’ multiple senses.Other than educators，parents could also help their children learn letters by reading alphabet books.By applying to free children’s book programs and cooperating with the school，those who cannot afford children’s books can get access to literacy resources at home.Parents could also embed letter learning into children’s daily lives.A short walk in the neighborhood，a trip to a local shopping mall，a barbecue party，can all be wonderful teachable moments when parents could engage their children into some sort of sensory letter learning activities.
　　To continue this inquiry，I will examine both the short-term and long-term benefits of these four teaching strategies with a larger，more diverse group of students.Due to the small size of this case research study，one can hardly generalize the research findings to a larger population.Also，one still cannot determine if students who have be taught using these strategies could take their advantages to primary schools.By conducting a research like this，I can help a larger body of educators update their educational practices to maximize their educational results.Besides that，this study lacks a concentration on the roles of parents in helping students learn their ABCs.In future studies，I will use questionnaires，interviews，and anecdotal records to explore the similarities and differences in the ways parents teach their preschoolers alphabet and how their instruction could impact these preschoolers’ learning in a preschool setting.
　　Limitations of study
　　This research study demonstrates limitations in three ways.First of all，due to the small size of the preschool，only five preschoolers are eligible for participating in this study.After the virus outbreak，only three of them remained in this research program.Although this group of participants is showing various levels of letter acquisition，the insufficient number of participants makes the study fail to make generalizations for the population of preschoolers.
　　Furthermore，as a preschool affiliated to a private，non-profit organization，it features very a flexible schedule and a high incidence of unpredictable events.For example，on some Fridays，the whole school will be holding special activities for every student to participate.These special events，while not frequent，could impact preschooler’s letter learning progress. 　　Third，this study took place in 2020 during a global pandemic.Because of the sudden closure of this preschool on the fifth week of my research，this eight-week self-study that involved five participants had to switch to a six-week case study that focuses on only three preschoolers.The quality of instruction has shrunk because I lost the chance to teach the letter m，l，g，r，n，and e.In addition，the sensory table had not established for preschoolers to practice letters names and sounds.The student name craft were failed to be completed.More than the shrink of instruction quality，the post-assessment results had experienced a fluctuation because students’ emotions were greatly affected by this pandemic.Due to the very young age of this group of participants，their emotions became very unstable before the closure of the preschool because they had sensed the change of many classroom routines.They had a hard time concentrating on my instruction and were distracted by adults walking around.
　　References
　　Abu Al-Rub， M. （2017）. The impact of small group instruction on preschool literacy skills. Journal of Education and Psychological Studies， 11（4）， 794-802.
　　Adams， M. J. （1990）. Beginning to read： Thinking and learning about print. MIT Press.
　　Akcay， O. （2016）. Implementation of cooperative learning model in preschool. Journal of Education and Learning， 5（3）， 83-93. DOI： 10.5539/jel.v5n3p83
　　Amendum， S. J.， Li， Y.， & Creamer， K. H. （2009）. Reading lesson instruction characteristics. Reading Psychology， 30（1）， 119-143.
　　Aram， D. （2005）. Continuity in children’s literacy achievements： A longitudinal  perspective from kindergarten to school. First Language， 25， 259-289.
　　Becker， W. C.， Engelmann， S.， Carnine， D.， & Maggs， A. （1982）. Direct instruction technology： Recent developments and research findings in improving children’s competence. In P. Karoly & J. Steffen （Eds.）， Advances in Child Behavioral Analysis and Therapy， Vol. 1 （pp. 151-206）. Heath.
　　Bennett， K. K.， Weigel， D. J.， & Martin， S. S. （2002）. Children’s acquisition of early Literacy skills： examining family contributions. Early Childhood Research Quarterly， 17（3）， 295-317.
　　Bertsch， K. M. （2002）. A comparison of one-to-one and small group instruction for young children with autism： Focus on effective teaching and behavior management. （Publication No. 1161）. [Doctoral dissertation， Western Michigan University]. ScholarWorks at WMU. 　　Bilodeau， K. （2012）. Hand-on strategies to help assist children in letter formation and letter recognition （Publication No. 222）. [Master’s thesis， St. John Fisher College]. Education Masters.
　　Bissex， G. L. （1980）. Gnys at Wrk： A Child Learns to Write and Read. Harvard University Press.
　　Bolduc， J. （2008）. The effects of music instruction on emergent literacy capacities among preschool children： A literature review. Early Childhood Research & Practice， 10（l）. http：//ecrp.uiuc.edu/vlOnl/bolduc.html
　　Borg， S. （2001）. The research journal： A tool for promoting and understanding researcher development. Language Teaching Research， 52（2）， 156-177.
　　Both-de Vries， A. C.， & Bus， A. G. （2014）. Visual processing of pictures and letters in alphabet books and the implications for letter learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology， 39， 156-163.
　　Bradley， B. A.， & Jones， J. （2011）. Sharing alphabet books in early childhood classrooms. The Reading Teacher， 60（5）， 452-463.
　　Brodin， M. S. （2015）. Improving letter name knowledge in primary Montessori. [Master’s thesis， St. Catherine University]. Masters of Arts in Education Action Research Papers.
　　Bruck， M.， Genesee， F.， & Caravolas， M. （1997）. A cross-linguistic study of early literacy acquisition. In B. Blachman （Ed.）， Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia： Implications for early intervention （pp. 145-162）. Erlbaum.
　　Burgess， S. R.， & Lonigan， C. J. （1998）. Bidirectional relations of phonological sensitivity and prereading abilities： Evidence from a preschool sample. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology， 70， 117-141.
　　Cambell， M. L.， Helf， S.， & Cooke， N. L. （2008）. Effects of adding multisensory Components to a supplemental reading program on the decoding skills of treatment resisters. Education and Treatment of Children， 31（3）， 267-295.
　　Caravolas， M.， Hulme， C.， & Snowling， M. J. （2001）. The foundations of spelling ability： Evidence from a 3-year logitudinal study. Journal of Memory and Language， 45， 751-774. 10，1006/jmla.2000.2785
　　Combs， M. （2002）. Readers and Writers in Primary Grades： A Balanced and Integrated Approach. Merrill， Prentice-Hall.
　　DataUSA. （2017）. 2014-2018 ACS PUMS 5-year Estimate [Data set]. https：//data.census.gov/mdat/？#/search？ds=ACSPUMS5Y2018
　　DiLorenzo， K.， Rody， C.， Bucholz， J.， & Brady， M. （2011）. Teaching letter-sound connections with picture mnemonics： Itchy's alphabet and early decoding.  Preventing School Failure， 55（1）， 28-34. 　　Dodge， D. T.， Colker， L. J.， & Heroman， C. （2002）. The Creative Curriculum for Preschool. Teaching Strategies Inc.
　　Doymu?， K.， ?im?ek， ?. & ?im?ek， U. （2005）. ??birlik?i ??renme y?ntemi üzerine derleme i：i?birlikli ??renme y?ntemi ve y?ntemle ilgili ?al??malar. Erzincan E?itim Fakültesi Dergisi， 7 （1）， 59-83.
　　Duncan， G. J.， & Magnuson， K. （2005）. Can family socioeconomic resources account for racial and ethnic test score gaps？ The Future of Children， 15（1）， 35–54.
　　Education Reform. （2017）. Direct instruction. Retrieved from http：//edglossary.org/directinstruction/
　　Ely Chapman Education Foundation. （2017）. Home. https：//www.elychapman.org/
　　Ely Chapman Education Foundation. （2017）. Sensational Summer Camp https：//www.elychapman.org/sensational-summer-camp/
　　Evans， M. A.， Saint-Aubin， J.， & Landry， N. （2009）. Letter names and alphabet book Reading by senior kindergarteners： An eye movement study. Child Development， 80， 1824-1841. DOI： 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01370.x
　　Evans， M. A.， Williamson， K.， & Pursoo， T. （2008）. Preschoolers’ attention to print during shared book reading. Scientific Studies of Reading， 12， 106-129.
　　Evans， M. A.， Sulima， E.， Nowak， S.， & Wiloughby， D. （2013， April 18 - April 20）. Design characteristics of digital alphabet books and the implications for alphabetic learning. In O. Korat （Chair）， E-Books for Young Children： Design and Efficiency  in Supporting Language and Literacy [Symposium]. The Society for Research in Child Development.
　　Ferrance， E. （2000）. Action Research. Brown University.
　　Ferreiro， E. （1986）. The interplay between information and assimilation in beginning literacy. In W. H. Teale & E. Sulzby （Eds.）， Emergent literacy： Writing and reading （pp. 15–49）. Ablex.
　　Fink， W. T.， & Sandall， S. R. （1980）. A comparison of one-to-one and small group instructional strategies with developmentally disabled preschoolers. Mental Retardation， 18， 34-35.
　　Fiset， D.， Blais， C.， Ethier-Majcher， C.， Arguin， M.， Bub， D. N.， & Gosselin， F. （2008）. Features for uppercase and lowercase letter identification. Psychological Science， 19， 1161-1168.
　　Florida Department of Education. （n.d.） LAFS： Language arts Florida standards. http：//www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/5390/urlt/0081014-lafs.pdf
　　Flynn， E. （2005）. The Abcs of O-G， the Flynn System. Multisensory Learning Associates.
　　Foulin， J. N. （2005）. Why is letter-name knowledge such as good predictor of learning to read？ Reading and Writing， 18， 129-155. 　　Frontczak， K.， & Bricker， D. （2004）. An Activity-Based Approach to Early Intervention. Brookes.
　　Gahan， M. S. （2019）. The impact of a multisensory instructional approach on learning letters and sounds [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Goucher College.
　　Gallagher， A.， Frith， U.， & Snowling， M. J. （2000）. Precursors of literacy delay among children at genetic risk of dyslexia. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry， 41（2）， 202-213.
　　Gardner， H. （1999）. Intelligence Reframed： Multiple Intelligences For The 21st Century. Basic Books.
　　Gestwicki， C. （2007）.  Developmentally appropriate practice： Curriculum and Development in early Education （3rd ed.）. Boston， MA： Cengage Learning.
　　Gibson， E. J.， Gibson， J. J.， Pick， A. D.， & Osser， H. A. （1962）. A developmental study of the discrimination of letter-like forms. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology， 55， 897-906.
　　Gibson， E. J. & Rader， N. （1979）. Attention： The perceiver as performer. Attention and Cognitive Development， 39（1）， 127-134.
　　Halle， T.， Forry， N.， Hair， E.， Perper， K.， Wandner， L.， Wessel， J.， & Vick， J. （2009）. Disparities in early learning and development： Lessons from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Birth Cohort （ECLS–B）. Child Trends.
　　Hatcher， P. J.， Hulme， C.， Miles， J. N.， Carroll J. M.， Hatcher， J.， Gibbs， S.， Smith， G.， Bowyer-Crane， C.， & Snowling， M. J. （2006）. Efficacy of small group reading intervention for beginning readers with reading delay： A randomized controlled trial Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry， 47， 820-827. DOI： 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01559.x
　　Jones， D. D.， Clark， S. K.， & Reutzel， D. R. （2012）. Enhancing alphabet knowledge instruction： research implications and practical strategies for early childhood educators. Early Childhood Education Journal. DOI 10.1007/s10643-012-0534-9
　　Jones， R. W. （2007）. Learning and teaching in small groups： characteristics， benefits， problems and approaches. Anaesth Intensive Care， 35， 587-592.
　　Justice， L. M.， Pence， K.， Bowles， R. B.， & Wiggins， A. （2006）. An investigation of four hypotheses concerning the order by which 4-year-old children learn the alphabet letters. Early Childhood Research Quarterly， 21（2006）， 374-389.
　　Lanning， L. （2002）. Managing and monitoring the rest of the class during guided reading： three literacy educators share their stories. The New England Reading Association Journal， 38， 20-24. 　　Larson， B. （2001）. Itchy 's Alphabet Teaching Guide. ABB Creations.
　　Longchamp， M.， Zerbato-Poudou， M.， & Velay， J. （2005）. The influence of writing Practice on letter recognition in preschool children： A comparison between handwriting and typing. Acta Psychologica， 119， 67-79.
　　Marzano， R.， Pickering， D.， & Pollock， J. （2001）. Classroom Instruction That Works： Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
　　Massachusetts Department of Education. （2001）. Massachusetts English language arts curriculum framework. http：//www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/current.html
　　McKay， R.， & Teale， W. H. （2015）. No More Teaching a Letter a Week. Heinemann.
　　Ose， Susan. （2016）. The effect of multisensory instruction on letter identification of kindergarten students. [Mater’s thesis， Goucher College]. Goucher College Master of Education.
　　Paivio， A. （1991）. Dual coding theory： Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology， 45， 255-287.
　　Piaget， J. （1951）. Egocentric thought and sociocentric thought. J. Piaget， Sociological studies， 270-286.
　　Piasta， S. B. （2014）. Moving to assessment-guided differentiated instruction to support young children’s alphabet knowledge. The Reading Teacher， 68（3）， 202-211.
　　Piasta， S. B.， Petscher， Y.， & Justice， L. M. （2012）. How many letters should preschoolers in public programs know？ The diagnostic efficiency of various preschool letter-naming benchmarks for predicting first-grade literacy achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology， 104 （4）， 945-958. doi： 10.1037/a0027757
　　Piasta， S. B.， Purpura， D. J.， & Wagner， R. K. （2010）. Fostering alphabet knowledge development： A comparison of two instructional approaches. Read Writ， 23（6）， 607-626. Piasta， S. B.， & Wagner， R. K. （2010）. Developing early literacy skills： A meta-analysis of alphabet learning and instruction. Reading Research Quarterly， 45， 8-38.
　　Rathvon， N. （2004）. Early Reading Assessment： A Practitioner’s Handbook. Guilford Press.
　　Reutzel， D. R. （2015）. Early literacy research： Findings primary‐grade teachers will want to know. The Reading Teacher， 69（1）， 14-24. https：//doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1387
　　Routman， R. （1991）. Invitations. Heinemann.
　　Schultz， M. （2015）. Literacy strategies for increasing a kindergartener’s letter identification and letter sound recognition： A self-study （Publication No. 576）. [Master’s thesis， The College at Brockport]. Education and Human Development Master’s Theses. 　　Silva， C.， Almeida， T.， & Alves Martins， M. （2010）. Letter names and sounds： Their implications for the phonetisation process. Reading and Writing， 23， 147-172. doi： 10.1007/s11145-008-9157-3
　　Shams， L.， & Setiz， A. R. Benefits of multisensory learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences， 60， 411-417.
　　Smolkin， L.B.， & Yaden， D.B.， Jr. （1992）. “O” is for “mouse”： First encounters with the alphabet book. Language Arts， 69， 432–441.
　　Stanley L.， & Finch， M. （2018）. Instructional strategies to enhance alphabet knowledge in kindergarten. Journal of Teacher Action Research， 4（2）， 31-46.
　　Storch S. A.， & Whitehurst， G. J. （2002）. Oral language and code-related precursors to reading： Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology， 38， 937-947.
　　Thorpe， H.， & Borden， K. （1985）. The effect of multisensory instruction upon the on task behaviors and word reading accuracy of learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities， 18（5）， 279-286.
　　Torgesen， J. K. （2002）. The prevention of reading difficulties. Journal of School Psychology， 40（1）， 7-26.
　　Treiman， R. （1993）. Beginning to Spell： A Study of First-Grade Children. Oxford University Press.
　　Treiman， R.， Cohen， J.， Mulqueeny， K.， Kesseler， B.， & Schechtman， S. （2007）. Young children’s knowledge about printed names. Child Development， 78（5）， 1458-1471.
　　Treiman， R.， Tincoff， R.， & Richmond-Welty， E. D. （1996）. Letter names help children to connect print and speech. Developmental Psychology， 32， 505-514.
　　U.S. Department of Health and Human Services， & Administration for Children and Families. （2003）. The Head Start path to positive child outcomes.         http：//citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download？doi=10.1.1.697.9445&rep=rep1&typ=pdf
　　Verhallen， M. J. A. J.， & Bus， A. G. （2011）. Young second language learners’ visual attention to illustrations in storybooks. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy， 11， 480-500. DOI： 10.1177/1468798411416785
　　Wharton-McDonald， R.， Pressley， M.， & Hampston， J. M. （1998）. Literacy instruction in nine first-grade classrooms： Teacher characteristics and student achievement. The Elementary School Journal， 99（2）， 101-128.
　　Whitehurst G. J， & Lonigan C. J. （1998）. Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development， 69（3）， 848-872.
　　Wilson， T.， Nabors， D.， Berg， H.， Simpson， C.， & Timme， K. （2012）. Small-group reading instruction： Lessons from the field. Dimensions of Early Childhood， 40（3）， 30-39.