I spent years thinking some of my students were resistant to analysis. Really addressing the needs of these students took more of a mindset shift from me to help them successfully analyze using pattern recognition. I found that for me it wasn’t really trying to change my students.

The Students Who Just Don’t Get It

It started with those students that were just…not doing it.

You know the ones – they do the reading but their annotations are superficial. They participate in discussion but never go deep. They write basic observations but avoid real analysis.

Or the group of students that I couldn’t crack at all. The students that spent the whole class “thinking” or only completing a part of the assignment that didn’t actually show their thinking…like they wrote down quotes they planned to use or they found a section of the text.

I tried all the usual moves to “engage” them:

• Making texts more relevant
• Creating interesting activities
• Building in discussion
• Adding creative projects

And these worked. But I felt like I was missing something.

I wasn’t having the results I wanted with all students. I found that some students, even at the end of the year, did not turn in some of the more basic assignments. And they weren’t just not meeting my expectations. It appeared they weren’t even trying.

I blamed all the usual suspects:

• Teenagers aren’t reading enough these days
• Expectations have decreased over the years
• Technology has made it more and more challenging to keep the attention of students

These are problems, for sure. But given this reality, what could I do now?

When I took a step back I had an uncomfortable realization: These students weren’t resistant to analysis. They literally couldn’t do what I was asking.

Not because they weren’t capable of analytical thinking. But because I was asking them to do something incredibly complex without the right tools.

The Invisible Analysis Good Readers Do When It Comes to Pattern Recognition

Think about what we’re actually asking when we say “analyze this text.” We’re asking students to:

• Hold multiple pieces of textual evidence in their minds at once
• Notice potential patterns and connections between these pieces
• Determine which patterns might be significant
• Build and test theories about what these patterns reveal
• Construct meaning from these connections
• Articulate their thinking clearly

That’s a lot of invisible work.

And most of our teaching focuses on the visible parts – annotating, discussing, writing – without actually helping students develop the thinking skills that make analysis possible.

Here’s what I mean. When we tell students to “track character development,” we’re actually asking them to:

• Notice and remember specific character moments
• Hold these moments in relationship to each other
• Spot potential patterns in behavior or language
• Test whether these patterns reveal something meaningful
• Build an interpretation based on these patterns

No wonder some students just list character actions or write vague observations about change.

They’re not being lazy. They’re doing what they can with the tools they have.

This realization changed everything about how I approach teaching analysis.

Instead of trying to make analysis more engaging, I started focusing on making it more possible.

The Shift to Investigating Theories to Build Pattern Recognition

The shift came when I started giving students theories to test instead of just asking them to “analyze.”

I remember watching a student stare at her blank annotation guide. The prompt said “Track character development” and she had dutifully written down every time the character appeared. But when I asked what she noticed, she just shrugged.

The next day, I tried something different. “There was an interesting theory someone raised in second period – they think this character actually becomes less honest as the story continues. What do you think?

Suddenly she was flipping through pages, finding evidence, building a case.

The difference between these approaches might seem subtle, but watch what happens: When we say “track character development,” students often list every character action and make vague observation with surface-level changes. With all these generic information students often get overwhelmed by details – nothing seems important because nothing they’ve found is particularly interesting.

But when we say “Test this theory: The character’s relationship with truth changes throughout the story,” students start hunting for specific evidence and building actual arguments.

Suddenly students who seemed resistant to analysis were:

• Gathering specific evidence
• Testing ideas against the text
• Building real arguments
• Making genuine discoveries

The difference? They had concrete investigative work they could actually do.

This isn’t about lowering expectations. If anything, the thinking becomes more rigorous because students are doing real analytical work instead of just collecting evidence.

Realistic Approach Pattern Recognition: Using Reading Hypotheses

Now, I know what you might be thinking: “This sounds great, but when am I supposed to teach all this invisible thinking work? I can barely get through the content as it is.”

I get it. Between covering required texts, teaching writing, managing discussions, and everything else we do, it can feel impossible to add “teaching thinking” to our plates. But I think that’s really the crux of our jobs as English teachers.

Here’s what’s interesting: When we build these thinking moves into our regular teaching practice, everything else actually becomes more efficient.

Because when students know how to investigate texts, they:

• Participate more meaningfully in discussion
• Write more focused analysis
• Read with greater purpose
• Develop faster as thinkers

Instead of spending class time pulling ideas out of reluctant students, we can spend it supporting active investigation.

Instead of repeating the same annotation instructions over and over, we can build sustainable analytical practices.

Instead of fighting student resistance, we can focus on developing student capability.

A Systematic Approach to Literary Analysis Pattern Recognition

The key is having a systematic approach to building these pattern recognition thinking skills. Here’s what worked in my classroom:

Start with Clear Pattern Recognition Theories

Instead of “analyze the text,” give students specific pattern recognition ideas to investigate. For example: 

• “The more power Macbeth gains, the more isolated he becomes.” 
• “Nick becomes less reliable as The Great Gatsby progresses.”
• “Some readers think this character becomes less honest over time.”

These give students a clear investigative focus, concrete analytical moves, and real intellectual work with room for discovery.

Move from Pattern Investigation Toward Independence

As students get comfortable testing theories, teach them to:

• Notice potential patterns
• Track how patterns develop
• Test pattern significance
• Build their own theories

Eventually, students start:

• Generating their own theories
• Noticing patterns naturally
• Building meaningful arguments
• Making authentic discoveries

The shift isn’t immediate. But with consistent practice, students develop real analytical skills they can use with any text.

What’s really interesting is watching how this changes their relationship with reading. They stop looking for “right answers” and start actually investigating texts.

Which is what we are really working towards.

What I find exciting about this approach is that it puts the power back into our hands. We know you can’t really make students do anything they don’t want to, and this shift in thinking takes that herculean task out of the equation. Providing scaffolding to students through pattern recognition leads to more divergent thinking and a more vibrant classroom community.