Defining Rural Literacies

Defining country-bred LiteraciesThe terminus country-bred literacies whoremonger agitate up a word form of images-that of a young woman breeding students of mixed ages and grades in the one-room schoolho subroutine, a bring out wife mending socks or preparing meals by the fireside, the farmer working(a) in bucolic knowledge bases, or the racialism and bigotry of small-town rednecks. Many of the images cracker-barrel literacies bring to mind, positive and negative, ar establish on established stereotypes and inaccuracies about rude volume and what counts as literacy or a mis go pastd judgement of the sameness of unpolished populations (Donehower, Hogg, Schell, 2007, 2012 one thousand Corbett, 2015). grounds how cracker-barrel literacies are specify and operationalized can qualifying an avenue for acquire beyond stereotypical cerebration about homespun perspectives and reconstructing new farming(prenominal) literacies to confront global modification.There is lack of scholarly work approximately bucolic program line and literacy studies (Brooke, 2003 Donehower, Hogg, Schell, 2007, 2012 jet Corbett, 2015). In fact, enquiryers run through long wrestled with whether examining teaching through a agrestic lens is of value (Biddle Azano, 2016). Modern literacy research is lots skewed towards urban or suburban sites and cut officipants (Donehower, Hogg, Schell, 2007), and study constitution largely reflects an urban or suburban bias where reformers and policy croprs wrongly assume that what works in these places will work for artless schools as well (). Many country researchers are calling for an increased reduce on the outlandish background of literacy studies (Azano, 2015 Donehower, Hogg, Schell, 2007, 2012 Edmondson, 2003 Green Corbett, 2015). Donehower, Hogg, and Schell (2007) state, rude literacies are non something for only country-bred volume to pay attention to countryfied should non be seen in op per spective to urban but as theatrical role of a complex global economical and favorable network (p. xi). They go on to provoke that in order to understand the connection of coarse, urban, and suburban subject fields, we must examine bucolic lives and literacies and challenge the commonplace assumptions about plain people and unpolished places that deem them lacking in opportunities for literacy work and alliance engagement (Donehower, Hogg, Schell, 2007, p. xi). At this moment in history, scholarly acumen into the image and significance of literacy exercise in farming(prenominal) societies may be to a greater outcome important than forever.The incipient story of boorish the res publicas in the twenty-first Century is one of interchange, challenge, promise, and uncertainty. manifold elements, including environmental, economic, and political factors, contribute to this story. Globalization and technical advancements scram transformed industries that tralatitiously characterize rural places (Edmondson, 2003 Green Corbett, 2015 Schafft Jackson, 2010) succession simultaneously changing rural peoples connection to a global reality (Bonanno Constance, 2003). Environmental factors, including fracking, strip mining, clear cutting, unsustainable hunting and fishing practices, and corporate farming, barely alter rural res publicascapes (Tieken, 2014). Population demographics are shifting as well, with 80% of nonmetropolitan growth between 2000 and 2010 resulting from an influx of racial and ethnic minorities (Johnson, 2012). The property of tweed rural residents is dropping plot of land the Latino population rises (Tieken, 2014). Outmigration experienced in some rural communities as young people leave to render perceived economic and social benefits (Carr Kefalas, 2009 Corbett, 2007) and influx of baby boomer retirees (Cromartie Nelson, 2009) as yet contributes to a changed rural America.The question of how rural literacies are define d and operationalized in a globalized world is the focus of this opus. Green and Corbett (2015) explain, hobnailed literacies are nonuple, mutable, and mobile, and ever relational. They inevitably float in a global sea (p. 12) yet little attention to date has been given to the distinctive features of literacy in rural contexts. The phrase rural literacies is, however, used in rural research (Donehower, Hogg, Schell, 2007, 2012 Edmondson, 2003 Eppley Corrbett, 2012 Green Corbett, 2015 Pyles, 2016 Sohn, 2006), but answers to questions of what the term means, how to go about researching rural literacies, and whether there is an true relationship between literacy studies and rural rearing are ambiguous. The purpose of this paper is to synthesize literature on rural literacies in an attempt to tolerate a description of how rural literacies are defined and operationalized and what role, if any, they play in literacy instruction. I will describe the theoretical framework for rural literacies studies, the difficulties in delineate rural literacies, and endeavor to synthesize proposed translations of rural literacies.Conceptual model for boorish LiteraciesGuiding an understanding of the meanings of rural literacies are three strands of opinion place-conscious program line, newborn Literacy Studies, and rural studies.Place-Conscious Pedagogy bandage educators tend to understand the immensity of context for l bring ining, practices of standardization deemed much fair and equalizing have typically been to a greater extent jibe in schools. Schafft and Jackson (2010) explain that standardization is a calculate for the erasure of difference and assimilation to a norm a good deal bunch by the standards of urban, warmness class disembodied spirit. federal mandates ignore the rural context and define for rural communities the literate practices needed to succeed. Donehower, Hogg, and Schell (2007) state that standardization movements ready a itinerary the decision- retrace power of local communities for their schools. They write that national standardization movements, end from local schools the possibility to define what constitutes literacy and how literacy should be valued in ship canal that could best(p) integrate literacy practices into the needs and life of the local community (Donehower, Hogg, Schell, 2007, p. 26). At the root of place-conscious pedagogy, however, is the thinker that the most powerful forms of accomplishment provide relevancy by engaging students in issues of importance in their local communities (Green Corbett, 2015).Place-conscious pedagogy is an approach intended to ground learning in local phenomenon and students lived experiences (Smith, 2002, p. 586). Woodhouse and Knapp (2000) set five characteristics of place-conscious learning 1) learning emerges from characteristics of place, 2) learning is multidisciplinary, 3) learning is experiential, 4) learning connects place with individuals and th eir communities, and 5) learning is designed to spring up, and potentially offer solutions to, problems in their communities. Place-conscious pedagogy in relation to rural literacies allows for a valuing of rural literacies that simultaneously foster a deep connection to place and localize those aspects that may require act for local sustain dexterity.Considering rural literacies with regard to place-conscious pedagogy allows for viewing rural literacies with an mettle towards sustain cap skill and relevance quite than seeing rural literacies from a deficit perspective. For much than a century, the common public perception regarding rural literacy was one of lack-rural people lacked the same mental fortitude and valued education less than their urban and suburban counterparts (Donehower, Hogg, Schell, 2007, 2012 Schafft Jackson, 2010 Tieken, 2014). Considering how the rural is depicted in literature and the literacies used in place in rural communities supports to define an d understand various rural literacies.New Literacy StudiesThe New Literacy Studies viewed literacy as not just a cognitive act, but a socio pagan one as well (Gee, 2010b). community learn a given musical mode of reading and writing by participating in the distinct practices of a social or cultural group. Two main premises underlie the New Literacy Studies. First is the understanding that literacy has changed from that of the past and will continue to change in the future. These changes happen because of social, cultural, and scientific changes meaning that literacy is alship canal situated in a context. Second, understanding how people use literacies in their everyday life can provide insight into how to improve formal literacy learning in school (Gee, 2004).The New Literacy Studies position literacy as a social act and examine how people use situated literacy skills in practicing multiple forms of literacy (Gee, 2010b). Literacy as a social practice means that what counts as lit eracy is expanded to include reading, writing, speaking, and listening and is not express mail to printed text on a page. The ways literacies are read and indite by the individual are guided by the values of their social or cultural group (Gee, 2010a). The New Literacy Studies, then, offer a guide for studying rural literacies by examining the ways rural people embark in social and cultural groups. Gee (2010a) writes, follow the social, cultural, institutional, and historical face of people (whatever you call them) first and then see how literacy is taken up and used in these organizations, along with action, interaction, values, and tools and technologies (p. 5). The sustainability of rural life requires a variety of literate behaviors from rural residents revolving around how to make decisions about growth and change in rural communities (Collins Blot, 2003), and examining these literacies can guide educators in understanding to what extent the texts produced in rural settin gs are representative of rural cultures. coarse as a Field of Study countrifiedity as a expanse of study has been debated throughout United States history, and a recent literature refreshen of the rural school problem by Biddle and Azano (2016) documents, in part, the evolution of thinking around rurality as a line of products of study. These authors found that researchers, educators, and reformers have fluctuated in their focus on rurality as a field of study over the past 100 years. Green and Corbett (2015) argue for the menses exigent for rural studies, writing, The question of (dis)advantage is crucial here. Thinking through the relations between space and equity, education and poverty, literacy and social justice, is clearly a proceeds of some urgency. Addressing the rural in these terms is crucial (p. 5).Rurality is often characterized as the otherwise, different from the norm. This characterization stems from a long history of stereotyping and stigmatizing of rural peo ples. Beginning in the 19th Century, publications spoke of the backwardness of rural life and people while advocating for the sophistication of city life (Theobold Wood, 2010). This idea of rural people as lacking education and sophistication continues to be seen in juvenile television shows like My Big Fat Redneck union or My Name is Earl. Recognizing the complexity of rurality, confronting and critically examining stereotypes, and conceptualizing rural literacies in a globalized world is important for the sustainability of rural places and for rurality as a field of study.Difficulties in Defining Rural LiteraciesDonehower, Hogg, and Schell (2007) explain that, in their attempts to define rural literacies for their book of the same name, they could not find a specific explanation in literacy research. Part of the difficulty in defining rural literacies arises from the complex, differing, and bulky definitions of their component parts. Because the words rural and literacy are l oaded terms with multiple definitions offered, it becomes challenging to concretely define rural literacies. The following sections describe the complications in defining the terms rural and literacy and thereby the difficulty in defining rural literacies.Defining RuralMany people can offer definitions for the term rural however, these definitions are usually vague and varied from individual to person. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (agribusiness) acknowledges this incongruity, stating, For some, rural is a state of mind. For others, rural is an objective quantitative measure. (Reynnells, 2016, para. 1). Quantitatively, rural is defined by what it is not-namely, anything that is not urban or suburban is rural. The United States General Accounting social occasion Fact canvas tent for Congressional Requesters (1993) states, Metro/urban areas can be defined using several criteria. Once this is done, nonmetro/rural is then defined by censure any area that is not metro/urban is nonmetro/rural (para. 1). In general, rural is determined quantitatively by using population verse and/or analysis of amount of open countryside (Reynnells, 2016). The most common Federal definitions of rural come from the Department of Commerces Bureau on the Census, the White Houses Office of Budget and Management, and the USDAs Economic Research Service. In choosing a particular(prenominal) definition, the USDA advises selecting establish on the purpose of the activity on which the definition is based (Reynnells, 2016).Donehower, Hogg, and Schell (2012) suggest that these demographic methods of defining rural as anything not urban lead to the homogenization of rural people as the other while elevating urban and suburban to the norm. It is a mistake to regard rural America as homogeneous as the myth of rural homogeneity masks vestigial miscellany among the people who have historically lived in the American countryside (Davis Marema, 2008, para. 9). While many people may thin k of rural America as made up of primarily white, working and middle class individuals, the proportion of white rural residents is decreasing while minority populations, particularly the Hispanic population, are growing (Housing Assistance Council, 2012). Definitions of rurality should acknowledge the complexity and diversity of rural populations.Rural can overly be understood as a way of identifying oneself or a group. People may identify themselves or others as rural regardless of their current location. In other words, someone can live outside of a rural area and still identify themselves as rural. Howley (2009) relates that it is the meanings associated with rural life and community, not geography or demographics, that qualifies rurality. It is, therefore, important to define rural not only geographically and demographically, but culturally as well (Donehower, Hogg, Schell, 2007, 2012 Tieken, 2014).Defining LiteracyLike the term rural, the term literacy also conjures up a var iety of definitions from the basic, functional skills call for for reading and writing to knowledge in a specified area, i.e. digital literacy or country music literacy. The literacy valued in todays schools is typically restrain to a back to basics mentality advocating systematic reading instruction (Edmondson, 2006). Cook-Gumperz (1986) suggests that a standardized notion of literacy tied to schooling leads to a principle that what counts as literacy is that which can be assessed, measured, and compared to the norm. This version of standardized, systematic literacy, it is argued, ignores the context in which literacy occurs. Others argue for broader definitions of literacy which encompass more than grapho-phonic relationships and traditional texts (Cope and Kalantzis, 2009 Gee, 2004 Lankshear and Knobel, 2007 New capital of the United Kingdom Group, 1996). Green and Corbett (2013) suggest that a range in what constitutes literacy is to be welcomed as it conjures up possibiliti es for new realizations and articulations of literacy, rurality, and education and helps in rethinking the literacy practices of the school, and thereby in enriching both praxis and inquiry (p. 4).Defining Rural LiteraciesThe broad and differing definitions of the terms rural and literacy help to explain the difficulty in defining rural literacies. Any definition of rural literacies should elucidate the role and significance of literacy practices for (and perhaps unique to) rural communities while also acknowledging the diversity of different ruralities and the complex nature of a globalized society. Donehower, Hogg, and Schell (2007) propose a definition for rural literacies that takes into account the rural context and has as its goal the sustainability of rural areas when they define rural literacies as the particular kinds of literate skills needed to achieve the goal of sustaining life in rural areas (p. 4). Their concept of sustainability stems from the 1987 World Commission on Environment and Development definition, which defined sustainability as the ability to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Donehower, Hogg, Schell, 2007, p. 4). This definition has guided how rural literacies have been operationalized, which will be discussed next.Conceptualizations of Rural LiteraciesIn reviewing literature on rural literacies, it became evident that no fixed qualities exemplify rural literacies. In part, this is because the diversity and breadth of rural areas precludes a concrete definition. The particular literacy practices valued in one rural area may not be those valued in another area. Three broad conceptualizations of rural literacies, however, have been offered by scholars (Donehower, Hogg, Schell, 2007 Edmondson, 2003 Eppley, 2013). Although scholars have not referred to these conceptualizations by the same terms, they can be synthesized under the categories traditional rural l iteracies, neoliberal or modern rural literacies, and new or postmodern rural literacies (Donehower, Hogg, Schell, 2007 Edmondson, 2003 Eppley, 2013). conventional Rural Literacies some(prenominal) Edmondson (2003) and Eppely (2010) refer to their first category of rural literacies as traditional literacies. Traditional rural literacies reflect a nostalgia for the past that is read in ohmic resistance to the conditions of todays modern life. Often idealized, traditional rural literacies envision a simpler, more m vocal life strongly connected to place and attached to the land (Edmondson, 2003). These literacies press a return to so-called glory days as a way to solve the problems of modern rural life. Dominant traditional rural literacies are based on the ideal of the family farm- rural families making their living off the land and stoic farmers characterized by a judgment in taking care of their own (Donehower, Hogg, Schell, 2007, Edmondson, 2003 Eppely, 2013). In traditional literacies, the farm and its land are symbolic of the very best way to be American yet this dominant understanding of traditional rural literacies is conduct and ignores the fact that not all traditional rural literacies are agrarian (Eppely, 2013, p. 81). In fact, small farms have been radically changed due to globalization. Of the 60 billion people who reside in rural areas, less than 2% earn their primary living through farming (USDA, 2012) yet, for many people, the ideal of the farm still exemplifies rural America.Preservation of rural culture is typically offered as the solution to modern rural problems by those who envision rural literacies as primarily traditional. Preservationists recognize rural culture as something apart from urban life and see the need to obey its difference (Shapiro, 1978). In schools, oral history projects and other preservation projects which isolate the particularities of rurality are often used as a way to educate students concerning traditional r ural literacies and as a way to preserve the past (Donehower, Hogg, Schell, 2007). While these types of projects which educate students about traditional rural literacies can be beneficial, Donehower, Hogg, and Schell (2007) caution breeding traditional literacies with an eye only toward preservation. They write,We must interrogate the source of our desires to preserve rural places and be ever-conscious of the danger that lies in preservationist models that seek to make of rural places a monolithic symbol of a collective American inheritance for those who live in urban and suburban areas, rather than vital and different communities that can adapt to economic and demographic shifts. Preservationist projects that seek to turn rural communities into museums essentially ensure that those communities cease to exist, as no one truly lives in a museum. (p. 44)Giroux (2004) advocates using public memory not as a museum to cultural perfection but as an opportunity to review and debate t he complexities of that memory.Modern or Neoliberal Rural LiteraciesAnother way to conceptualize rural literacies is what Edmondson (2003) terms neoliberal rural literacies and Eppely (2010) describes as modern rural literacies. Modern/Neoliberal literacies see a rural way of life as ill-equipped to meet the needs of people in a global economy (Edmondson, 2003 Eppely, 2010). Mass production, efficiency, and neoliberal principles should characterize rural life where rural communities are seen as vehicles for reducing production costs. Agribusiness, drop off market logic, and capitalism are king while literacy is reduced to a generalizable set of practical skills necessary for economic participation as employee or consumer (Eppely, 2010, p. 85).Neoliberalism/modernism, then, insinuates that education for life in place is not sufficient for rural students, and the solution to the inadequacy of rural communities is to modernize rural education (Edmondson, 2003 Shapiro, 1978). local an aesthetic literacies are disregarded in the face of standardization, and the purpose of public education is narrowed to ensure American economic success in a global economy (Eppely, 2010). Shafft and Jackson (2015) write, public education serves the economic imperative of capitalism by severing attachment to place and producing mobile, adaptable callowness flexibly responsive to changing labor market conditions (p. 2). Green (2013) writes that the idea that location plays no part in the delivery of instruction leads to coeval arguments that introducing new digital technology into schooling overcomes many of the difficulties and disadvantages of rural education (p. 20). Technology is seen as a way to solve many of the inadequacies of rural schools despite strong assertions that place matters. Standardization removes from local school systems the ability to define what constitutes as literacy for their communities, and neoliberal/modern interpretations of rural literacies do not all ow the opportunity for local places to determine how rural literacies can best be enacted to sustain local communities.New or Postmodern Rural LiteraciesThe inadequacies of traditional and modern or neoliberal rural literacies in encapsulating coetaneous rural literacies necessitates a third conceptualization of rural literacies in a globalized world. A new conceptualization, termed new (Edmondson, 2003) or postmodern (Eppely, 2010) rural literacies, has been suggested that proposes ways of understanding literacy as a resource for democratic citizenship that shapes the potential for rural communities to experience the economic prosperity, environmental protection, and social equity desired to make rural communities sustainable places (Donehower, Hogg, Schell, 2007, p. 12). The key to this conceptualization is the idea of sustaining rural places rather than preserving an ideal rural culture or modernizing rural places so they fit urban and suburban areas. An important understandin g of sustainability is that economic systems are interlinked-the consumer practices of urban and suburban people affect rural communities (Donehower, Hogg, Schell, 2007). Postmodern rural literacy practices alter people to critically examine their communities, including taken for granted truths about rural people and life, and communicate with others both their potential and limitations (Eppely, 2010).Postmodern rural literacies also allow for critique of modern assumptions that new is always better (Edmondson, 2003). Rural literacies become a tool for citizens to deconstruct and critique their own literacy practices to determine how they want to live together. Donehower, Hogg, and Schell (2007) write, rural people can and do make conscious, informed choices among different alternatives for practicing and valuing reading and writing, acknowledging literacys important functions in navigating the complex economic and social realities of rural life (p. 68). Defining and understanding new or postmodern rural literacies is essential in shaping relationships both at heart rural communities and with the outside world.This conceptualization acknowledges multiple forms of rural literacies and encourages Add more here about Prairie township identification among rural, urban, and suburban citizens. In Prairie Town, Edmondson (2003) advocate for a critical public pedagogy that questions and renegotiates the relationships among rural, urban, and suburban people in order to sustain rural communities (__). Instead of placing rural, suburban, and urban communities in antagonist to one another, new rural literacies enable examining the ways literate practices can connect communities and ensure a sustainable future for everyone (Donehower, Hogg, Schell, 2007).ConclusionIt is a myth that rural literacies are based solely on traditional models of literacy. Examining the literature on rural literacies shows the complexity of literate practices in rural communities that refle ct a mixture of traditional, modern or neoliberal, and postmodern or new rural literacies. Rurality is not defined by images of a one-room schoolhouse, a farm wife mending socks, a farmer working in bucolic fields, or an uneducated hillbilly. The realities of rural literacies are that they are complex, multiple, and evolving in relation to a globalized world. As Donehower, Hogg, and Schell (2007) conclude, the phrase rural literacies should suggest reading and writing as social action that supports and sustains diverse communities arduous to cope with complex, often interlinked economic, social, cultural, and environmental issues (p. 193). Rural literacies research that addresses these issues and contributes in the ability of rural communities to address these issues is essential.ReferencesAzano, A.P. (2015). Addressing the rural context in literacies research. Journal of youthful and Adult Literacy, 59(3), 267-269.Biddle, C., Azano, A.P. (2016). Constructing and reconstructing t he rural school problem A century of rural education research. Review of Research in Education, 40, 298-325.Bonanno, A., Constance, D.H. (2003). The global/local interface. In D.L. Brown and L.E. Swanson, eds., Challenges for rural America in the twenty-first century, 241-251. University Park, PA pascal State Press.Brooke, R. (2003). Rural voices Place-conscious education and the teaching of writing. New York, NY Teachers College Press.Carr, P.J., Kefalas, M.J. (2010). Hallowing out the middle The rural brain drain and what it means for America. Boston, MA Beacon Press.Cope, B. Kalantzis, M. (2009). Multiliteracies New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies An International Journal, 4, 164-195.Corbett, M. (2008). Learning to leave The irony of schooling in a coastal community. Black Point, Nova Scotia, Canada Fernwood.Cromartie, J., Nelson, P. (2009). Baby Boom Migration and Its Impact on Rural America. Retrieved from USDA website https//www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/ er r79/9346_err79_1_.pdfDavis, D., Marema, T. (2008). A rural perspective. Grantmakers in the Arts, 19(3). Retrieved from http//www.giarts.org/article/rural-perspectiveDonehower, K., Hogg, C., Schell, E.E. (2007). Rural literacies. Carbondale, IL Southern Illinois University Press.Donehower, K., Hogg, C., Schell, E.E. (2012). Reclaiming the rural Essays on literacy, rhetoric, and pedagogy. Carbondale, IL Southern Illinois University Press.Edmondson, J. (2003). Prairie Town Redefining rural life in the age of globalization. Lanham, MD Rowman Littlefield.Eppley, K. (2013). My roots submerge deep Literacy practices as mirrors of traditional, modern, and postmodern ruralities. In Green, B. Corbett, M. (Eds.) Rethinking rural literacies A multinational perspective. Basingstoke, UK Palgrave Macmillan.Eppely, K., Corbett, M. (2012). Ill see that when I believe it A dialogue on epistemological difference and rural literacies. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 27(1/2), 1-9.Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning A Critique of traditional schooling. capital of the United KingdomRoutledge.Gee J. P. (2010a). A situated-sociocultural approach to literacy and technology. In Baker E. (Ed.), The new literacies Multiple perspectives on research and practice (pp. 165-193). New York Guilford.Gee, J.P. (2010b). New digital media and learning as an emerging area and worked examples as one way forward. Cambridge, MA MIT Press.Giroux, H.A. (2004). Cultural studies, public pedagogy, and the responsibility of intellectuals. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 1(1), 59-79.Green, B., Corbett, M. (2015). Rethinking rural literacies A transnational perspective. Basingstoke, UK Palgrave Macmillan.Housing Assistance Council. (2012). The rural data opening report Demographic data, 2010. Retrieved from Housing Assistance Council website www.ruraldataportal.org/ search.aspxJohnson, K.M. (2012). Rural demographic change in the new century Slower growth, increased diversity (Issue brief No. 44). Retrieved from scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article=1158context=carseyLankshear, C., Knobel, M. (2007). Sampling the new in new literacies. In Knobel, M., Lankshear, C. (Eds.) A new literacies sampler (pp. 1-24). New York, NY Peter Lang.New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-89.Pyles, D.G. (2016). Rural media literacy jejuneness documentary videomaking as rural literacy practice. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 31(7), 1-15.Reynnells, L. (2016). What is rural? Retrieved from United States Department of Agriculture website www.nal.usda.gov/ric/what-is-ruralSchafft, K.A., Jackson, A.Y. (2010). Rural education for the twenty-first century Identity, place, and community in a globalizing world. University Park, PA Pennsylvania State University Press.Shapiro, H. (1978). Appalachia on our minds The southern mountains and mountaineers in the American consci ousness, 1870-1920. Chapel Hill, NC University of North Carolina Press.Silver, R., DeYoung, A.J. (1986). The political orientation of rural/Appalachian education, 1895-1935 The Appalachian education problem as part of the Appalachian life problem. Educational Theory, 36(1), 51-65.Smith, G.A. (2002). Place-based education Learning to be where we are. The Phi Delta Kappan, 83(8), 584-594.Sohn, K.K. (2006). Whistlin and crowin women of Appalachia Literacy practices since college. Carbondale, IL Southern Illinois University Press.Tieken, M.C. (2014). Why rural schools matter. Chapel Hill, NC The University of North Carolina Press.Theobald, P., Wood, K. (2010). Learning to be rural Identity lessons from history, schooling, and the U.S. corporate media. In K. A. Schafft A. Y. Jackson (Eds.), Rural education for the twenty-rst centur