Prediction Relay¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 1 claim (1 for) · 3 studies (2 causal, 1 quant-synthesis), q3 · 1 of 3 report an effect size

Description¶

Prediction Relay is one of the structured activities in Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) for Reading, developed at Vanderbilt University. In it, paired students take turns reading a paragraph aloud, then stop to predict what will happen next in the text before continuing. The reader makes and verifies predictions; the coach supports, questions, and awards points for plausible, text-grounded predictions. Prediction Relay extends the core PALS sequence (partner reading with summarization) by making anticipation of upcoming text the explicit comprehension move.

Design Implications¶

Prediction Relay operationalizes the finding that generating predictions before and during reading activates prior knowledge and sets a purpose for reading, which improves comprehension over passive reading Activating prior knowledge improves learning. [+M]. Because predictions must be checked against the text, the activity builds the monitoring habit central to skilled comprehension, and the paired coach role provides immediate peer feedback. The strict turn-taking structure keeps both students cognitively engaged rather than allowing one to read while the other listens passively.

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Level-appropriate narrative or expository text for each pair (ideally at the lower-performing reader's instructional level)
• Trained students who know the reader/coach roles and the prediction sentence frames ("I predict… because…")
• A timer and a simple point system for predictions and verification
• Teacher modeling of a prediction relay before students work independently

Constraints¶

• Effectiveness depends on the quality of peer coaching; pairs who drift into turn-taking without genuine prediction and verification gain little [-M]
• Less effective with highly predictable or highly unpredictable texts — predictions that are trivially obvious or pure guesses do not engage comprehension monitoring [~M]
• Requires decoding fluency sufficient to read paragraphs aloud; students with very weak fluency may spend all effort on word recognition, leaving no resources for prediction [~M]
• Poorly matched pairs (large ability gaps) can reduce participation by the weaker reader [-M]

Implementation Variability¶

• Written predictions in sentence frames for older students; oral predictions for younger ones
• Whole-class prediction relays on a projected text as a low-preparation variant
• Extension into expository text by predicting "what information will come next" rather than plot events
• Combine with Summarization steps from the base PALS sequence for longer passages

Target Learners¶

• Students in grades 2–6, the range for which PALS Reading was originally validated
• Struggling readers who benefit from structured peer support and frequent, low-stakes comprehension practice
• English learners, when paired with sentence frames and vocabulary pre-teaching
• Less suitable for students still acquiring basic decoding; fluency must be adequate for paragraph-level reading

Target Learning Goals¶

• Comprehension monitoring: predicting, then verifying against the text
• Inferential reading: grounding predictions in text evidence ("because…")
• Vocabulary growth through repeated exposure in meaningful context
• Oral reading fluency through the partner-reading component

Instructions¶

1. Pair students and assign reader/coach roles; the stronger reader typically reads first Peer Tutoring.
2. Model one full relay cycle with the whole class, thinking aloud as you predict and verify (Think-Aloud).
3. Reader A reads one paragraph aloud while Coach A follows the text.
4. Reader A makes a prediction about the next paragraph, stating a reason grounded in the text; Coach A awards points for plausible, text-based predictions and provides feedback.
5. Reader B reads the next paragraph; both students check Reader A's prediction against what actually happened and award verification points.
6. Continue alternating for the timed session (typically 10–15 minutes), then switch roles in the next session (Practice).

Related Strategies¶

• Reciprocal Teaching — shares the predict–read–verify cycle but adds questioning, clarifying, and summarizing in a role-rotation format
• Peer Tutoring — the broader class of structured peer-mediated activities of which PALS is a validated instance
• Partner Reading — the fluency component that precedes Prediction Relay in the PALS sequence
• Arrange PALS tutor training through AIR by specifying training type, grade level, group size, and location

Examples¶

• PALS Reading (Vanderbilt University) — the original peer-mediated reading program; Prediction Relay is a standard activity in the grades 2–6 version. https://kc.vanderbilt.edu/pals/
• A third-grade teacher runs a 12-minute Prediction Relay on a chapter of Charlotte's Web, with pairs earning points for predictions that cite text evidence and for correctly verifying the previous prediction.

Key Sources¶

• Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 174–206. doi:10.3102/00028312034001174
• Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Kazdan, S., & Allen, S. (1999). Effects of peer-assisted learning strategies in reading with and without training in elaborated help giving. The Elementary School Journal, 99(3), 201–219. doi:10.1086/461923
• 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
• Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64(4), 479–530. doi:10.3102/00346543064004479