“Reading aloud with fluency and correct intonation” has been mentioned as an important goal in L1 reading curricula in about one third of the countries involved in the PIRLS11 assessment (PIRLS 2012, 12-13). Although the Finnish curriculum does not include reading aloud in its objectives, this activity is frequently present during the lessons. Oral reading is often used as a diagnostic tool to measure the quality of reading literacy skills but the uses of this practice with students that are fluent readers of their mother tongue are pedagogically not entirely transparent (Goodman & Goodman 2013). In this presentation we explore the activity of reading aloud in classrooms by using conversation analysis as our method (e.g. Sidnell & Stivers 2013). Our data consists of video-recorded classroom interaction in Finnish schools (grade 6; students 12 years old) and interviews with teachers and students. The aim of the analysis is to find out the sequential and pedagogical motivation and management of oral reading in the interaction of L1-classrooms. According to our preliminary analysis, both teachers and students read aloud, for example, texts in the textbooks, fictional texts and texts written by students. The teacher is predominantly the one who decides on the practices around of the reading activity. There seems to be a relation between teacher’s pronounced motivation for reading aloud and the quality of the classroom discussion about the texts as well as the meanings the participants give for this activity. However, often the reason for performing the activity of reading aloud seems not to be in developing students’ (critical) literacy skills and improving their reading motivation (see Guthrie & Wigfield 2000). More often it seems to be connected to teachers’ attempts to maintain classroom order, as a practice to offer a shared reference point for students and get restless students quiet.

Goodman, Y.M. & Goodman, K.S. (2013). To err is human: Learning about language processes by analyzing miscues. In: D. E. Alvermann, R. B. Ruddell, & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th edition, pp. 525-543). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Guthrie, J. T. & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In: Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P. B., Pearson, P. D. & Barr, R. (eds.), Handbook of reading research, vol. 3. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. PIRLS 2012 = Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M., Minnich, C. A., Drucker, K.T. & Ragan, M.A. (2012). PIRLS 2011 Encyclopedia. Education Policy and Curriculum in Reading. Volume 1: A–K. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College. Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (Eds.) (2013).The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.