Editing Phonics (section)

===Analytic phonics and analogy phonics===
{{main|Analytic phonics}}

''Analytic phonics'' does not involve pronouncing individual sounds (phonemes) in isolation and blending the sounds, as is done in synthetic phonics. Rather, it is taught at the word level and students learn to analyze letter-sound relationships once the word is identified. For example, students analyze letter-sound correspondences such as the ''ou'' spelling of {{IPAc-en|aʊ}} in shr'''ou'''ds. Also, students might be asked to practice saying words with similar sounds such as '''b'''all, '''b'''at and '''b'''ite. Furthermore, students are taught consonant blends (separate, adjacent consonants) as units, such as '''br'''eak or '''shr'''ouds.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www1.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf|title=National Reading Panel, USA, page 2-89}}</ref>

''Analogy phonics'' is a particular type of ''analytic phonics'' in which the teacher has students analyze phonic elements according to the speech sounds ([[Phonogram (linguistics)|phonogram]]s) in the word. One method is referred to as the ''onset-[[syllable rime|rime]])'' approach. The onset is the initial sound and the rime is the vowel and the consonant sounds that follow it. For example, in the words ''cat, mat and sat,'' the rime is '''at'''.) Teachers using the analogy method may have students memorize a bank of phonograms, such as ''-at'' or ''-am''.<ref name="Analogy based phonics, LD Online">{{cite web|url=http://www.ldonline.org/glossary/Analogy-based_phonics|title=Analogy based phonics, LD Online|access-date=2020-06-05|archive-date=2021-04-17|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210417212110/http://www.ldonline.org/glossary/Analogy-based_phonics|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www1.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf|title=National Reading Panel, USA, page 2-89}}</ref><ref name="Schwanenflugel-2016">{{Cite book |last1=Schwanenflugel |first1=Paula J. |title=The psychology of reading : theory and applications |date=2016 |first2=Nancy F. |last2=Knapp |isbn=978-1-4625-2350-4 |location=New York |oclc=913890283 |publisher= The Guilford Press}}</ref>

Teachers might also teach students about ''word families'' (e.g., c'''an''', r'''an''', m'''an''', or m'''ay''', pl'''ay''', s'''ay'''). When students are exposed to different word families, they are able to identify, analyze and construct different rhyming word patterns.<ref name="Schwanenflugel-2016" /> An example of a student's increasing ability to construct a rhyming word pattern with the ''oa'' grapheme would be as follows: ''road, toad, load and goad''.<ref name="Schwanenflugel-2016" /> Examples of other recognizable graphemes that allow students to construct rhyming word patterns are ''at, igh, ew, oo, ou'' and ''air''.<ref name="Reithaugh">{{Cite book |last=Reithaugh |first=Dawn |title=Orchestrating Success in Reading}}</ref> More letter combinations  or graphemes can be viewed in the table below to support students increasing ability to construct a rhyming word pattern of similar phonemes or speech sound:
{| class="wikitable"
|+Graphemes
!Consonant
Diagraphs
!Short Vowel
Sounds
!Long Vowel
Sounds
!Vowel
Diphthongs
|-
|ng
|ea
|ai
|ou_e
|-
|tch
|ough
|e_e
|oy
|-
|
|aw
|ea
|
|}
<ref name="Reithaugh" />

Letter combinations or graphemes  of new words should have letters students have already learned and can recognize on their own.<ref name="Schwanenflugel-2016" />

There have been many experimental research studies and  correlational data studies conducted on the effectiveness of instruction using analytic phonics and synthetic phonics. Johnston et al. (2012) conducted experimental research studies that tested the effectiveness of phonics learning instruction among 10 year old boys and girls.<ref name="Johnston-2012">{{Cite journal |last1=Johnston |first1=R. S |last2=McGeown |first2=S |last3=Watson |first3=J. E. |date=2012 |title=Long-term effects of synthetic versus analytic phonics teaching on the reading and spelling ability of 10 year old boys and girls. |journal=Reading and Writing: Interdisciplinary Journal |volume=v25 n6 |issue=6 |pages=1365–1384 |doi=10.1007/s11145-011-9323-x |s2cid=55324494 |url=https://hull-repository.worktribe.com/file/464897/1/Long.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221121075703/https://hull-repository.worktribe.com/file/464897/1/Long.pdf |archive-date=2022-11-21 |url-status=live }}</ref>  They used  comparative data from the Clackmannanshire Report and chose 393 participants to compare synthetic phonics instruction and analytic phonics instruction.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2005/02/20682/52383|archive-url=https://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20170701074158/http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2005/02/20682/52383|url-status=dead|archive-date=2017-07-01|title=Clackmannanshire Report, a seven-year study that was published in 2005, webarchive.org.uk }}</ref><ref name="Johnston-2012" />  The boys taught by the synthetic phonics method had better word reading than the girls in their classes, and their spelling and reading comprehension was as good. On the other hand, with analytic phonics teaching, although the boys performed as well as the girls in word reading, they had inferior spelling and reading comprehension. Overall, the group taught by synthetic phonics had better word reading, spelling, and reading comprehension. And, synthetic phonics did not lead to any impairment in the reading of irregular words.<ref name="Johnston-2012" />