Making and confirming predictions¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 1 claim (1 for) · 4 studies (2 quant-synthesis, 1 causal, 1 associational), q2–q4 · 1 of 4 report an effect size

Description¶

Making and confirming predictions asks learners to commit to an explicit, educated guess about what a text, lecture, or recording will contain — based on titles, headings, images, or prior knowledge — before or during engagement. Learners then read or listen to confirm, revise, or reject each prediction, treating the material as evidence against a hypothesis rather than as passive input. The commitment step is what distinguishes prediction from mere anticipation: a stated guess creates a stake in the outcome that drives attention and comprehension monitoring.

Design Implications¶

Prediction activates relevant prior knowledge before engagement, giving learners a schema to which new information can be assimilated Activation. Because learners must check their guesses against the material, the strategy builds comprehension monitoring — learners notice gaps between expectation and text, which prompts repair and Self-Explanation [+M]. Predictions work best when they are specific enough to be falsifiable ("the interviewee will argue X because Y") rather than generic ("this will be about holidays").

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Materials with informative entry points (titles, images, headings, opening lines) that support reasonable inference
• Explicit instruction in how to generate and justify predictions, with modeling (Think-Aloud if available)
• A structured moment for confirming or revising predictions — not just reading to the end
• Opportunities to discuss discrepant predictions, which is where much of the learning occurs

Constraints¶

• Learners with limited vocabulary or background knowledge generate weak predictions and may disengage when guesses fail [~M] — provide entry-point scaffolds (images, key vocabulary, guiding questions) first
• Predictions confirmed too easily (obvious texts) produce no cognitive work; overly obscure texts produce random guessing [-M] — the material must be predictable-but-not-trivial
• If predictions are never revisited, the activity collapses into a warm-up ritual with no monitoring benefit [-M]
• Wrong predictions that learners hold with high confidence can interfere with comprehension of disconfirming text unless the discrepancy is explicitly addressed [~S]

Implementation Variability¶

• Picture walk / preview prediction — common in early literacy: predict a story from images before reading
• Anticipation guides — learners agree or disagree with statements before reading, then re-evaluate after; effective for expository text and conceptual change
• Prediction during listening — pause an audio or lecture at decision points and have learners predict the next move (strong fit for ESL listening instruction)
• Prediction in problem solving — predict an answer or estimate before computing, then compare (e.g., "Estimation 180" style routines)

Target Learners¶

• Adult ESL and literacy learners transitioning to academic study, where previewing and monitoring are gatekeeper skills [+W]
• Novices in any domain who need a purpose for reading or listening; prediction supplies that purpose and directs attention [+M]
• Less effective for learners with strong domain knowledge, who already generate anticipations spontaneously — the explicit routine may add little [~M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Comprehension and retention of text or listening material
• Comprehension monitoring and metacognitive awareness of one's own understanding
• Connecting prior knowledge to new information (Activation)
• Critical evaluation: judging evidence against an explicit hypothesis

Instructions¶

1. Select material and identify its natural prediction points (title, images, headings, pauses in audio). Link the material to prior knowledge with a brief Activation activity.
2. Have learners state specific, justified predictions — orally, in writing, or on an anticipation guide. Require a reason ("I predict… because…").
3. Learners engage with the material (Assigned Readings, lecture, or audio), marking where predictions are confirmed, revised, or contradicted (Annotating).
4. Stop at decision points to confirm or revise predictions; for listening tasks, pause the audio and re-predict.
5. Debrief in Class Discussion: which predictions held, which failed, and what textual evidence settled the question. The discrepancy discussion is the payoff — do not skip it.

Related Strategies¶

• Activating Prior Knowledge — prediction is a goal-directed form of activation; the guess gives the activated knowledge a job to do
• Advance Organizers — a preview structure that can serve as the scaffold from which predictions are generated

Examples¶

• Anticipation guides in expository reading — Learners agree/disagree with 4–6 statements about a topic before reading a science text, then revisit each after reading and cite evidence for changes. Widely used in content-area literacy instruction.
• ESL listening prediction — Before an interview about a holiday, learners predict beliefs and customs they expect to hear; class predictions are listed, then checked against the recording, with discrepancies discussed.
• Picture-walk prediction (early literacy) — Children predict a story's events from illustrations before reading, then confirm page by page; a core routine in guided reading programs such as Reading Recovery lessons.
• Prediction in mathematics — Learners estimate an answer before computing and compare estimate to result, turning errors into diagnostic information rather than failures.

Key Sources¶

• Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1
• Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 239–264. doi:10.3102/00346543061002239
• Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of Reading Research (pp. 255–291). Longman.
• Pressley, M. (2002). Reading Instruction That Works: The Case for Balanced Teaching (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.