Reading Matters Winter 2018

Beesley, A. (2011). Keeping rural schools up to full speed. T H E Journal , 38 (9), 26-27.

who have continual access to technology skills and those that do not (Leu et al., 2014). This is not a mandate to abandon all non-technology activities. However, teachers and students will benefit from digital literacy that promotes digital content creation and comprehension no longer limited to, but building upon, conventional forms of literacy such as alphabetic text in print- based forms of communication (Hutchison &Woodward, 2014). As technology redefines classroom education, students increasingly have opportunities to become creators rather than receptors (Yancey, 2009). However, research has shown that rural students, in particular, may be left out of the important content creation vital to their contribution to future economic and democratic systems (Lenhart & Madden, 2005). Teachers will likely be the facilitators of this transition. This change, or collaboration, is breaking down classroom walls, and connecting students and teachers with community resources that may not have been available without technology. This literature review demonstrates that teachers, particularly in rural schools and communities, may not have the professional development, access, or culture they need to support student learning in a digital world. Teachers must be given professional development that is significant, sustainable, and uniquely tailored to their teaching context (Howley & Howley, 2008; Gordon, 2011). Furthermore, teacher attitudes toward technology should be a consideration in the design of this professional development as it influences teacher autonomy and their ability to successfully implement the professional development they receive (Cullen et al., 2006; Howley & Howley, 2008; VanSciver, 1994; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002). Those that have suggested that teachers no longer face a technological divide, relating to access to technology, but should be more concerned with a participation gap, dealing with providing quality experiences with technology, must remember that these barriers are dependent on context (Jenkins et al., 2006). In fact, this review suggests that for rural districts, in particular, technological access continues to be a significant barrier to technological integration (Herold, 2015), for which creative solutions must be pursued even if from a distance (Beesley, 2011; Gordon, 2011; Knezek & Christensen, 2007). Finally, the focus here on rural integration of technology demonstrates that technology integration, as with many learning issues, is specific to sociocultural context. In supporting rural teachers and students with technology integration, future research must not only consider the previous discussion of development, attitude, and access, but also take heed of cultural values and goals (Howley & Howley, 2008; Howley et al., 2011; Gordon, 2011). References Arnold, M. L., Newman, J. H., Gaddy, B. B., & Dean, C. B. (2005). A look at the condition of rural education research: Setting a direction for future research. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 20 (6), 1-25.

Bennett, S., & Maton, K. (2010). Beyond the ‘digital natives’debate: Towards a more nuanced understanding of students’technology experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 26(5), 321-331. doi: 10.1111/j/1365- 2729.2010.00360.x Blanchard, M.R., LePrevost, C.E. , Tolin, A.D., & Gutierrez, K.S. (2016). Investigating technology-enhanced teacher professional development in rural, high-poverty middle schools. Educational Researcher , 45 (3), 207-220. doi: 10.3102/0013189X16644602.

Reading Matters Research Matters

Bouck, E.C. (2004). How size and setting impact education in rural schools. Rural Educator , 25 (3), 38-42.

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cullen, T.A., Brush, T.A., Frey, T.J., Hinshaw, R.S., &Warren, S.J. (2006). NCLB technology and a rural school: A case study. The Rural Educator, 28 (1) , 9-16.

Darling-Hammond, L. & Richardson, N. (2009). Teacher learning: What matters? Educational Leadership , 66 (5), 46–53.

Desimone, L.M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher , 38 (3), 181–199. doi: 10.3102/0013189X08331140. DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2001). From unequal access to differentiated use: A literature review and agenda for research on digital inequality . Report prepared for Russell Sage Foundation. Retrieved from https://www. russellsage.org/research/reports/dimaggio Goh, D., & Kale, U. (2016) The urban-rural gap: Project-based learning with web 2.0 amongWest Virginian teachers. Technology, Pedagogy, and Education, 25 (3), 355-376. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2015.1051490

Gordon, D. (2011). Remote Learning: Technology in Rural Schools. T H E Journal . 38 (9), 18-24.

Herold, B. (2015). The slowest internet in Mississippi. Education Week . Retrieved from http://www. edweek. org/ew/projects/2015/rural-schools-broadband/the- slowest-internet-in-mississippi. htm l . Hollandsworth, R., Dowdy, L., & Donovan, J. (2011). Digital citizenship in K-12: It takes a village. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 55 (4), 37-47.

Howell, E., Butler, T., & Reinking, D. (2017). Integrating multimodal arguments into high school writing instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, 49 (2), 181-209.

Howley, A., & Howley, C. (2008). Planning for technology integration: Is the agenda overrated or underappreciated? Educational Planning , 17 (1), 1-17.

Howley, A., Wood, L., & Hough, B. (2011). Rural elementary school teachers’ technology integration. Journal of Research in Rural Education . 26 (9), 1-13.

Azano, A. (2015). Addressing the rural context in literacies research: A call to action. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59(3), 267-269.

Reading Matters | Volume 18 • Winter 2018 | scira.org | 19

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS