








































English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

Vol. 8, No. 2, August 2025, pp. 66-77  

        https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v8i2.14081        http://journal2.uad.ac.id/index.php/eltej/index         eltej@pbi.uad.ac.id  

Teaching English in rural settings: A systematic review of 

challenges and strategies in non-technological classrooms 

Andi Cahyuni Candrawati a,1,*, Widyastuti Purbani b,2 

a, b Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Jl. Colombo No. 1, Karangmalang, Depok, Sleman, Yogyakarta, 55281, Indonesia 
1 andicahyuni.2024@student.uny.ac.id *; 2  purbani@uny.ac.id 

 

* Corresponding author  

A R T I C L E  I N F O 

 
 

ABST RACT   

 

 

Article history 

Received 12 June 2025 

Revised 12 July 2025 

Accepted 4 August 2025 

 The aim of this study is to understand what challenges encountered by 
English teachers and how they cope with the barriers, particularly in 
low-resource, non-technological settings. Using the PRISMA 
framework, this study conducted a systematic literature review to 
synthesize the twenty articles published between 2018 and 2024 from 
Scopus, Connected Papers and ERIC. This study identified eight major 
challenges which are: inadequate resources for learning, poor school 
infrastructure, lack of teaching media, overly teacher-centered 
pedagogy, heavy workload, insufficiency of prepared teachers, 
adaptation issues, and low levels of student motivation. To cope with 
these challenges, teachers applied six primary strategies which 
included development of teaching materials by hand, content 
simplification through local dialects, application of teacher-centered 
pedagogy, peer collaboration, curriculum improvisation to fit local 
context, and informal professional development activities. These 
results have noted the creativity and adaptability of teachers within 
constrained environments and underscore the necessity for situated 
educational policies. Moreover, the study contributes to a better 
understanding on the preservation of English instruction in rural 
settings and offers useful information to policy makers, educators, and 
other divisions which work towards resolving inequities in education.  

 

© The Authors 2025. Published by Universitas Ahmad Dahlan. 

This is an open access article under the CC–BY-SA license. 

    

 

 
Keywords 

Rural education 

English language teaching 

Non-technological classrooms 

 

 

 

 

How to Cite: Candrawati, A, C. & Purbani, W. (2025). Teaching English in rural settings: A systematic review 
of challenges and strategies in non-technological classrooms. English Language Teaching Educational Journal, 
8(2), 54-65. https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v8i2.14081   

1. Introduction  

The teaching of English as a foreign or second language serves as one of the ways through which 
an individual, especially from a non-English speaking country, can access global information, 
education, and economic opportunities (Zeng & Yang, 2024). However, the stubborn lack of 
educational equity around the world makes it more difficult to provide proper English language 
instruction in rural regions. Unlike urban areas, rural schools are usually resource poor in terms of 
qualified teaching personnel, teaching aids, and infrastructural facilities (Baharuddin & Burhan, 
2025). These systematic inadequacies not only impede students’ language acquisition but also restrict 
their overall academic development and employability in the future. Although English is known as 
the language of international communication and is an essential requirement for joining a knowledge-
based society (Crystal, 2003), providing English language education in under-resourced rural 
classrooms requires overcoming profoundly entrenched structural obstacles. 

One of the most pressing challenges in these rural classrooms is the limited or nonexistent use of 
technology. Technology integration has improved teaching English in many urban well-resourced 

https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v8i2.14081
http://journal2.uad.ac.id/index.php/eltej/index
mailto:eltej@pbi.uad.ac.id
mailto:andicahyuni.2024@student.uny.ac.id
mailto:purbani@uny.ac.id
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v8i1.13992
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.12928/eltej.v8i2.14081&domain=pdf
https://orcid.org/0009-0007-2331-9187
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7362-846X


67 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 
         Vol. 8, No. 2, August 2025, pp. 66-77 

 Candrawati, A, C. & Purbani, W. (Teaching English in rural settings: A systematic review of…..) 

settings using digital tools, multimedia resources, and technology enabling students to actively 
participate and learn languages (Haleem et al., 2022; Persichitte et al., 2018; Poudel 2022). However, 
many rural schools have not adopted these practices. In this case, the region’s technological 
infrastructure, including internet availability, electricity, and even basic digital devices, is absent or 
extremely unreliable (Donald & Hashim, 2025). Thus, there are no opportunities for participatory 
engagement teaching methodologies to be employed due to technology’s absence in learning (Anggela 
et al., 2024). 

Within these constraints, it is important to explore how English is taught in remote, non-
technological classrooms. Gaining insight into this scenario reveals important aspects of how teachers 
modify their teaching within the bounds of resource limitations. It demonstrates the need for low-tech, 
scalable and sustainable approaches relevant to resource-poor educational contexts. As Zein et al. 
(2020) emphasized, the four language skills—listening, speaking, reading and writing—must be 
taught using appropriate context-aligned sociocultural frameworks. Knowing how better to teach 
English without technology is crucial towards achieving educational equity and improving outcomes 
in rural areas. 

A number of studies have looked into the challenges faced by English teachers in rural areas. As 
cited in Harlina & Yusuf (2020), several challenges such as insufficient facilities, absence of modern 
instructional tools, sparse professional training, and minimal active involvement of parents surfaced. 
Additionally, Kusuma (2022) pointed out that owing to the lack of basic amenities like electricity, 
teachers are somewhat compelled to employ outdated techniques which greatly hampers the use of 
physical audio materials. Still, some researchers do highlight the self-sufficiency and tenacity 
displayed by educators within these constraints. Halimi et al. (2020) documented that teachers use 
their own money to provide supplemental resources for classroom activities and to improve the 
physical environment of the classroom so students will engage better. These local experiences 
combined with the rich cultures of the students themselves are adapted into the lessons. 

While these studies provide meaningful insights, most are concerned with more of an isolated issue 
or context-specific case which makes it nearly impossible to reach a broad-based conclusion. There is 
a gap of systematic and integrative reviews that shows the scope of English teaching in rural, non-
technological classrooms around the globe. In the absence of such holistic amalgamation, efforts to 
create appropriately customized and impactful foundational frameworks, be it through educator 
workshops, curriculum creation or even resource distribution, continue to be contextually shallow and 
disorganized. What is lacking is an overview that synthesizes all documented challenges and devised 
teaching strategies from various rural settings to aim for evidence-based educational practices for all 
and not some.  

This study addresses that gap by conducting a systematic literature review on English language 
teaching in rural classrooms that have no access to technology. The purpose is to compile and critically 
evaluate available research to expose patterns of reoccurring challenges, devisable learning hurdles, 
instructional approaches, and pedagogical adaptations made within non-technological frameworks. 
Through the provision of synthesized understanding, the review aims to assist educators, researchers, 
policy developers and instructional institutions towards fostering equitable, adaptable, sustainable 
solutions towards English language education problems in rural contexts. 

To guide this inquiry, the study poses the following research questions: 

1. What are the challenges faced by English teachers in non-technological classrooms? 

2. How do English teachers modify their teaching strategies to adapt to the absence of 
technology in rural classrooms? 

2. Method 

This study employed a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) to investigate the challenges and 
strategies experienced by English teachers in non-technological classroom settings, especially in rural 
areas. To guide the review process, the researchers adopted PRISMA framework (Page et al., 2021) 
along with procedures from Petticrew & Roberts (2006). The review was carried out through several 
steps: formulating research questions, developing search strategies, carrying out the article searches, 
stating the inclusion criteria, screening the research articles, presenting the findings, summarizing and 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 68 

 Vol. 8, No. 2, August 2025, pp. 66-77 

 Candrawati, A, C. & Purbani, W. (Teaching English in rural settings: A systematic review of…..) 

analyzing, drawing the research results. Detailed information regarding the article selection process 
can be seen in Figure 1. 

 

 

Fig. 1. Article selection using the PRISMA framework. 

2.1. Identification Phase 

This research was conducted by using three databases, namely Scopus, Connected Papers and 
ERIC. When accessing those databases, the researchers searched the articles by giving the available 
filters. The searches were limited to several inclusion criteria such as (1) articles which are written in 
English; (2) articles which are published between 2018 and 2024; (3) empirical articles; (4) keywords 
“challenges OR issues OR problems encountered in teaching English in non-technological class OR 
rural OR remote settings” and “solutions OR recommendations OR suggestions to overcome the 
challenges in teaching English in non-technological class OR rural OR remote settings”. Then, the 
duplicates are removed to identify whether the research has many duplicates on the same database or 
even on a different database. During the identification process, we found a total of 191 articles. Out 
of these 32 articles were discovered in Scopus while 103 articles were found in Connected Papers. 
Additionally, 56 articles were located in ERIC. Afterward, the articles underwent a screening and 
eligibility process to select the ones for our research scope. 

2.2. Screening and Eligibility 

Before starting with the screening phase, the researchers identified the title and abstract based on 
the inclusion criteria, and 149 articles were removed before the screening. Once the article filters were 
applied, the researchers evaluated the 42 remaining articles to assess how well they complied with the 
inclusion criteria. In this iterative process of refinement which has been termed as “screening”, 19 



69 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 
         Vol. 8, No. 2, August 2025, pp. 66-77 

 Candrawati, A, C. & Purbani, W. (Teaching English in rural settings: A systematic review of…..) 

articles were discarded because they redundantly failed these criteria. Their exclusion was because of 
the duplication and types of the articles. From this screening, 23 articles were selected for the next 
stage. Next, the researchers read the entire contents of these articles and conducted another screening. 
The result showed that 3 articles did not meet the inclusion criteria due to their relevance to teaching 
English without modern technology. Therefore, the final result of the review included 20 articles that 
met the inclusion criteria. 

2.3. Inclusion 

The inclusion phase consisted of picking articles from the Screening and Eligibility step which had 
been filtered out earlier based on specific criteria. These articles aimed at assessing the issues and 
coping mechanisms dealt with by English teachers in rural, non technological classrooms. The chosen 
papers analyzed how these issues were resolved within the rural areas and how teachers attempted to 
resolve challenges. In this case, the focus was purely on studies that illuminated some aspects 
concerning the teaching of English in a non technological environment   There were 20 papers 
selected: 5 were sourced from Scopus, 12 from Connected Papers and 3 from ERIC. 

2.4. Data Analysis 

The analysis of data was done by using the thematic analysis approach, following several phases 
proposed by Braun & Clarke (2006). This process included familiarizing with the data by reading and 
re-reading the 20 selected articles, generating initial codes to identify key features related to challenges 
and strategies, searching for themes by collating codes into potential themes, reviewing themes to 
ensure they accurately represented the data, defining and naming themes to capture the essence of 
each theme, and producing the report by organizing the findings into meaningful categories. 

3. Finding and Discussion 

Based on the purpose of the study stated in the background, the authors presented the data that 
have been analyzed here. Besides describing teachers’ challenges and strategies in teaching English 
at non-technological classrooms, the authors also provided some information related to the data of 
author and the research title in this section. 

3.1.  Data of Authors and Research Title 

The Table 1 below shows the author's data and the research title. 

Table 1.  Data of author and research title 

No Author(s) Research Title 

1 Akter et al. (2024) Teaching English in Rural Settings: Challenges and Solutions 

2 Anggela et al. (2024) Teaching English in Rural Area: Difficulties and Strategies 

3 Aziz et al. (2019) 
Coping with stress: Exploring the lived experiences of English teachers who persist 

in Malaysian rural schools 

4 Belatrech (2018) Novice EFL Teachers’ Challenges in Mostaganem Rural Areas 

5 Endriyati & Abasa (2019) Challenges in Teaching English at Rural and Urban Schools and Their Solutions 

6 Fadilah et al. (2023) 
Teachers’ Teaching Reflection: English Teachers’ Challenges in Rural Areas of 

Indonesia 

7 Febriana et al. (2018) Understanding Teaching in Rural Indonesian Schools: Teachers’ Challenges 

8 Halik & Nusrath (2020) 
Challenges Faced by ESL Teachers in Teaching English to the Students in Rural 
Schools 

9 Harlina & Yusuf (2020) Challenges of Learning English in Rural School 

10 Kadel (2024) Challenges in Teaching English Speaking and Listening Skills in Rural Nepal 

11 Kumar (2024) 
Challenges and Solutions in English Language Teaching (ELT) in Rural Settings: 
A Case Study in India 

12 Kusuma (2022) 
EFL Teachers’ Online Teaching in Rural Schools during the COVID-19 

Pandemic: Stories from Indonesia 

13 Laila et al. (2023) 
Challenges of Teaching English for Elementary School Student in Indonesian 
Rural Areas 

14 Mncube et al. (2021) 
Teaching in English across the Curriculum: A Lived Experiences of the Novice 

Teachers in A Selected Rural Fet Schools in South Africa 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 70 

 Vol. 8, No. 2, August 2025, pp. 66-77 

 Candrawati, A, C. & Purbani, W. (Teaching English in rural settings: A systematic review of…..) 

15 Rosyida et al. (2024) 
Navigating Global Standards: Assessing English Teacher Quality in Rural Areas-
Challenges and Opportunities 

16 Saha (2023) 
English teachers’ attitudes towards learners: Effects on the rural pedagogies in 

Bangladesh 

17 Saiful & Triyono (2018) EFL Teachers’ Reflection in Teaching English to EFL Students of Rural Areas 
18 Saputri & Sukarno (2024) Teacher’s Challenges and Strategies in Teaching English in Rural Areas 

19 Sekar Pramesty et al. (2022) Teachers’ Challenges in Teaching English to Young Learners in Rural Area 

20 Singh (2024) Navigating English Language Education Challenges in Resource-limited Contexts 

 

3.2.  Teachers’ Challenges in Teaching English at Rural Classrooms without Technological 

Resources 

This study revealed many pertinent challenges faced by English teachers in rural classrooms 
without access to technological resources. These challenges range from inadequate instructional 
materials and low infrastructure qualities to insufficient teacher readiness and low student 
participation. The challenges derived were persisting obstacles experienced through various rural 
educational settings and literature review resulted in uncovering eight distinct yet interrelated enduring 
challenges. The synthesis of these categories, along with the corresponding studies, is detailed in Table 
2. 

Table 2.  Category of the challenges in teaching English at non-technological classrooms 

No. Category Challenges Author(s) 

1 Learning 

resources 

Teachers often faced the frustration of having very few 

or outdated textbooks and no access to digital resources 

like videos, audio files, or educational apps. This 

severely limited their ability to create engaging and 
varied lessons, forcing them to rely on traditional, less 

interactive methods which can bore students and reduce 

learning effectiveness. 

Akter et al. (2024); Aziz et al. (2019); 

Fadilah et al. (2023); Febriana et al. 

(2018); Halik & Nusrath (2020); Kadel 

(2024); Kumar (2024); Laila et al. (2023); 
Rosyida et al. (2024); Saiful & Triyono 

(2018); Pramesty et al. (2022); Singh 

(2024) 

2 School 

facilities 

Many rural schools lacked reliable electricity, internet 

access, and multimedia equipment such as projectors or 

speakers. Classrooms were often overcrowded, poorly 
lit, and insufficiently furnished. Teachers reported that 

these conditions make it difficult to maintain student 

attention and deliver lessons effectively, often causing 

physical discomfort for both teachers and students. 

Akter et al. (2024); Anggela et al. (2024); 

Aziz et al. (2019); Endriyati & Abasa 

(2019); Febriana et al. (2018); Mncube et 
al. (2021); Rosyida et al. (2024); Saputri 

& Sukarno (2024) 

3 Teaching 
media 

Teachers depended on blackboards, chalk, and 
handwritten worksheets for lesson delivery. They found 

that this increased preparation time and limited 

creativity, making it difficult to present language in 

dynamic and memorable ways. The absence of audio-
visual tools also restricted students’ exposure to 

authentic language use, a crucial element in language 

acquisition. 

Akter et al. (2024); Endriyati & Abasa 
(2019); Mncube et al. (2021); Saiful & 

Triyono (2018); Saputri & Sukarno 

(2024); Pramesty et al. (2022) 

4 Teaching 
methods 

Without access to interactive media or technology, 
teachers felt compelled to use lecture-style teaching, 

repetition, and direct explanation. They found it 

challenging to apply student-centered or 

communicative approaches, which research supports as 
more effective, especially for language learning. This 

limitation reduced student participation and enthusiasm 

for learning English. 

Febriana et al. (2018); Pramesty et al. 
(2022) 



71 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 
         Vol. 8, No. 2, August 2025, pp. 66-77 

 Candrawati, A, C. & Purbani, W. (Teaching English in rural settings: A systematic review of…..) 

5 Teacher 
workload 

Many teachers reported that they were working long 
hours and creating all teaching materials by hand to 

tailor lessons to their students’ needs. They also 

managed classroom discipline, lesson planning, and 

administrative tasks without assistance, leading to 
physical and emotional exhaustion, which hinders their 

ability to innovate or provide individualized student 

support. 

Anggela et al. (2024); Aziz et al. (2019); 
Saha (2023) 

6 Teacher 
quality 

Teachers often felt underprepared for rural teaching due 
to gaps in pre-service education and a lack of ongoing 

professional development adapted to resource-poor 

settings. This results in low confidence when delivering 

lessons and adapting to diverse learner needs, 
particularly without technological aid, which further 

undermines teaching effectiveness. 

 

Akter et al. (2024); Anggela et al. (2024); 
Endriyati & Abasa (2019); Fadilah et al. 

(2023); Belatrech (2018); Rosyida et al. 

(2024); Saha (2023); Saputri & Sukarno 

(2024) 

7 Teacher 
adaptation 

Many novice teachers, especially those trained in urban 
settings, struggled to modify their teaching strategies 

for large, mixed-ability classes without digital tools. 

They faced challenges managing classrooms and 

adapting curricula to local realities, which affected their 
job satisfaction and instructional success during their 

initial years. 

 

Belatrech (2018); Saha (2023) 

8 Student 
motivation 

Teachers observed that students frequently lack interest 
in learning English due to limited exposure outside 

school and the absence of engaging or relevant learning 

materials. This low motivation made it difficult to 

sustain classroom attention and participation, requiring 
teachers to spended additional effort to encourage and 

support student engagement and persistence. 

Akter et al. (2024); Anggela et al. (2024); 
Aziz et al. (2019); Endriyati & Abasa 

(2019); Fadilah et al. (2023); Halik & 

Nusrath (2020); Kadel (2024); Kumar 

(2024); Laila et al. (2023); Mncube et al. 
(2021); Saiful & Triyono (2018) 

 

As shown in Table 2, this research discovered eight particular categories of the challenges that 
English teachers faced in technologically barren rural classrooms. The most frequent was resource 
constraints, discussed in 12 articles which expressed reliance on outdated textbooks and the absence 
of digital audio or visual materials. This scarcity limited the variety of lessons and student 
engagement. Organizational issues were also cited in 8 articles which discussed unreliable electricity, 
overcrowded classrooms, and insufficient furniture. The third major challenge, teaching media, was 
described in 6 studies, which reported the use of chalkboards and handouts for teaching due to lack of 
audiovisual equipment. Moreover, teaching methods were discussed in 2 articles where the absence 
of technology confined educators to lectures, restricting the implementation of communicative or 
student-centered models. 4 studies focused on the impacts of teacher workload, citing long hours, 
extensive manual prep work, and excess admin work. Along with this, 8 other studies associated poor 
teacher ability with lack of adequate preparation and few professional development options, resulting 
in a lack of confidence and constrained teaching autonomy. The problem of teacher adaptation was 
discussed within the confines of 2 articles, paying particular attention to new teachers and their 
inability to cope with the rural realities. Finally, 12 articles focused on student motivation, revealing 
that limited contact with the English language as well as dull materials severely restricted the learners' 
interest and participation. All these factors create a picture of multilayered and interconnected 
problems in teaching that go beyond instruction and define the culture of teaching and learning in 
rural, low-resource settings. 

3.3.  Teachers’ Strategies to Teach English in Rural Classrooms without Technological 

Resources 

In response to the lack of technological resources in rural classrooms, English teachers have 
adapted their teaching strategies in creative and resourceful ways. These modifications are essential 
for maintaining effective instruction and student engagement in under-resourced environments. Table 
3 presents a synthesis of the most common strategies employed by teachers. 

  



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 72 

 Vol. 8, No. 2, August 2025, pp. 66-77 

 Candrawati, A, C. & Purbani, W. (Teaching English in rural settings: A systematic review of…..) 

Table 3.  The synthesis result of teachers’ strategies 

No. Category Strategies Author(s) 

1 Creating and adapting 

materials manually 

In the absence of technological tools such as projectors, e-

books, or interactive platforms, teachers created their own 

instructional materials. These included handwritten 
worksheets, paper-based flashcards, vocabulary lists, and 

board illustrations. Some teachers repurposed materials 

from outdated textbooks or created analog games (like 

word-matching cards) to make learning more active and 
personalized. 

Aziz et al. (2019); 

Singh (2024); Febriana 

et al. (2018); Fadilah 
et al. (2023); Kumar 

(2024) 

2 Simplifying content 

and using local 

languages 

Teachers reduced the complexity of English content by 

focusing on key vocabulary, translating abstract words into 

the local language, and explaining grammatical rules in 

simplified terms. In multilingual communities, code-
switching is often used to bridge comprehension. For 

example, when teaching verbs, teachers may use local 

analogies or storytelling in the students’ mother tongue to 

ensure understanding. 

Mncube et al. (2021); 

Saiful & Triyono 

(2018); Fadilah et al. 

(2023); Kumar (2024) 

3 Applying teacher-

centered instruction 
methods 

Due to large class sizes and limited resources, teachers 

adopted more traditional methods like lectures, dictation, 
and translation. Instruction was primarily one-way, from 

teacher to student, with less interaction. For instance, a 

teacher read a passage aloud, translated it sentence by 

sentence, and then asked students to memorize key words 
or recited definitions—prioritizing coverage over 

communication. 

Akter et al. (2024); 

Halik & Nusrath 
(2020); Saha (2023); 

Saiful & Triyono, 

(2018); Saputri & 

Sukarno (2024) 

4 Encouraging peer 
learning and 

collaboration 

Teachers facilitated small-group discussions, peer teaching, 
or partner-based exercises where stronger students help 

explain material to weaker peers. Common practices 

included reading dialogues in pairs, vocabulary games in 

teams, or writing assignments reviewed by peers. These 
activities were especially effective in classrooms lacking 

individual attention or multimedia support. 

Anggela et al. (2024); 
Fadilah et al. (2023); 

Saputri & Sukarno 

(2024) 

5 Adapting the 

curriculum with 

improvisation 

Teachers creatively modified national curriculum topics to 

fit local realities and available resources. Teachers also 

reordered units and removed non-essential content to suit 
the school calendar or community events. 

Akter et al. (2024); 

Kumar (2024); Saputri 

& Sukarno (2024) 

6 Engaging in self-

learning and informal 
professional 

development 

Teachers, aware of their training limitations, sought self-

improvement by reading guidebooks, consulting with senior 
colleagues, attending local workshops (if available), or 

reflecting through teaching journals. Some teachers formed 

study groups to share lesson ideas or seek out free printed 

materials from education offices. In rare cases where the 
internet is accessible, they downloaded printable lesson 

plans during school visits to town centers. 

Anggela et al. (2024); 

Fadilah et al. (2023); 
Rosyida et al. (2024); 

Saha (2023); Saputri 

& Sukarno (2024) 

 

3.4.  Discussion 

The findings of this study shed light on the complex and deeply interwoven challenges that English 
teachers face in rural, non-technological classrooms. At the heart of these challenges lies a structural 
disparity between urban and rural educational environments, where access to technology, adequate 
infrastructure, and updated learning resources remains uneven. The persistent lack of electricity, 
internet connectivity, multimedia tools, and modern teaching materials not only limits the delivery of 



73 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 
         Vol. 8, No. 2, August 2025, pp. 66-77 

 Candrawati, A, C. & Purbani, W. (Teaching English in rural settings: A systematic review of…..) 

content but also reduces the potential for dynamic, engaging instruction that fosters student interest 
and retention. In many cases, teachers are forced to revert to outdated, teacher-centered methods 
simply because they lack the tools and support to implement more interactive approaches. This context 
exposes a fundamental injustice in educational equity, where students’ access to meaningful learning 
is determined not by their capacity to learn, but by their geographic location and the resources 
available to their schools. 

The challenges identified also affirm key propositions in educational and sociocultural theory, 
particularly Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory (1979), which emphasizes the influence of 
immediate environments on a learner’s development. In rural classrooms, these environments are 
often constrained by poverty, limited community support, and a disconnect between school curricula 
and students’ everyday experiences. Students’ low motivation to learn English, as frequently reported 
in the studies reviewed, underscores the failure of current instructional approaches to resonate with 
their realities (Halimi et al., 2020). The assumption in traditional language acquisition models that 
learners are inherently motivated to learn a global language is challenged by this study’s findings. 
Instead, the results align more closely with Dörnyei (2005) sociocultural model of motivation, which 
argues that learners’ attitudes, engagement, and aspirations are deeply shaped by contextual and 
cultural relevance. The absence of multimedia and interactive tools not only strips English learning of 
its global appeal but also reinforces feelings of distance and disconnection between the learners and 
the language being taught. 

Importantly, the review also reveals the emotional and physical toll that rural teaching takes on 
educators. Many of them not only create all their own materials by hand, but also manage 
administrative duties, discipline, and lesson planning—often with little to no institutional support. 
This workload contributes significantly to burnout and hinders innovation, posing a real threat to the 
sustainability of quality education in rural areas. Moreover, the mismatch between teacher training 
programs—typically designed for urban or better-resourced schools—and the reality of rural practice 
contributes to feelings of inadequacy among teachers. Novice teachers in particular struggle to adapt, 
which not only affects their performance but also their long-term commitment to working in such 
areas. These findings suggest that current models of teacher education and support are insufficiently 
responsive to the diverse contexts in which educators operate. Therefore, policies aimed at rural 
education improvement must go beyond simply recruiting more teachers; they must provide relevant, 
ongoing support that prepares teachers for the conditions they will face. 

Despite the overwhelming constraints, the strategies employed by teachers in these settings speak 
volumes about their resilience, creativity, and commitment to their students. From manually crafting 
teaching aids to using local languages and cultural references and promoting peer collaboration to 
adjusting the curriculum to reflect local experiences, rural teachers are not passive victims of their 
environment. Rather, they are active agents of adaptation and innovation. These adaptive strategies 
provide critical insights into what a culturally responsive and context-aware pedagogy might look like. 
Importantly, they also prompt a re-evaluation of what constitutes “best practice” in language teaching. 
Pedagogies that prioritize flexibility, localization, and low-tech innovation may be more sustainable 
and impactful in resource-poor environments than imported, high-tech solutions that are impractical 
or irrelevant (Marouli, 2021). 

In light of these findings, several practical and theoretical implications emerge. Practically, 
stakeholders must recognize that technological advancement alone will not close the educational gap 
between rural and urban learners. Interventions must include the development of localized teaching 
frameworks, investment in school infrastructure, and the provision of alternative teaching aids that do 
not depend on digital tools. Theoretically, this study contributes to the growing body of literature 
calling for a shift from universalized models of language instruction to pluralistic, context-sensitive 
frameworks. It challenges the assumption that digitalization is the only path to modernization in 
education and highlights the value of grassroots solutions rooted in teachers’ lived experiences 
(Canagarajah, 2005). Ultimately, addressing the educational needs of rural areas is not just a matter 
of logistical support—it is an ethical imperative that speaks to broader questions of inclusion, justice, 
and the right to quality education for all (Schuelka & Engsig, 2022). 

 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 74 

 Vol. 8, No. 2, August 2025, pp. 66-77 

 Candrawati, A, C. & Purbani, W. (Teaching English in rural settings: A systematic review of…..) 

4. Conclusion 

This study concludes that English language teaching in rural, non-technological classrooms is 
shaped not only by persistent structural challenges such as limited resources, inadequate infrastructure, 
lack of teaching media, and teacher preparedness, but also marked by teachers’ resilience and adaptive 
strategies. Through on a systematic review of twenty empirical studies, it identified eight primary 
challenges as well as six coping strategies that showcase how educators resourcefully overcome 
difficult circumstances through manual material creation, integration of the local language, and peer 
collaboration. The findings highlight the urgency for zone educational interventions, tailored training 
for teachers in rural areas, and acknowledgment of low-tech, culturally adaptive teaching strategies. 
The review provides a comprehensive synthesis, although drawing from secondary sources highlights 
the need for primary fieldwork in order to capture lived experiences and test the long-term 
effectiveness of grassroots solutions for improving rural English education. 

 

 

Acknowledgment 

We would like to express our deepest gratitude to Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan (LPDP) 

under the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia for supporting the publication of this 

article, and also to English Language Education Department, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, for 

providing the facilities and academic support needed for this study.  

Declarations 

Author contribution : Both authors carried out all stages of the research process 

collaboratively, including data collection, analysis and interpretation 

of the data, and preparation of the manuscript. 

Funding statement : This research is funded by Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan 

(LPDP) under the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia 

Conflict of interest : Both authors declare that they have no competing interests. 

Ethics declaration 

 

 

 

Additional 
information 

: We as authors acknowledge that this work has been written based on 
ethical research that conforms with the regulations of our university. 

We support English Language Teaching Education Journal (ELTEJ) 
in maintaining high standards of personal conduct, practicing 
honesty in all our professional practices and endeavors. 

No additional information is available for this paper. 

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES  

Akter, S., Malakar, L., & Hans, A. (2024). Teaching English in Rural Settings: Challenges and 

Solutions. YMER, 23(4). http://ymerdigital.com 

Anggela, S., Warna, D., Alya, F., & Sukma, O. (2024). Teaching English in Rural Area: Difficulties 

and Strategies. Journal of English Teaching Adi Buana, 09(01). 

https://doi.org/10.36456/jet.v9.n01.2024.8753  

Aziz, A. A. A., Swanto, S., & Azhar, S. B. H. J. (2019). Coping with stress: Exploring the lived 

experiences of English teachers who persist in Malaysian rural schools. Indonesian Journal of 

Applied Linguistics, 8(3), 506–514. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v8i3.15249 

http://ymerdigital.com/
https://doi.org/10.36456/jet.v9.n01.2024.8753
https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v8i3.15249


75 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 
         Vol. 8, No. 2, August 2025, pp. 66-77 

 Candrawati, A, C. & Purbani, W. (Teaching English in rural settings: A systematic review of…..) 

Baharuddin, & Burhan. (2025). Urban and rural teacher perspectives on Indonesian educational 

reform: challenges and policy implications. Cogent Education, 12(1). 

https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2497142 

Belatrech, H. S.-K. (2018). Novice EFL teachers’ challenges in Mostaganem rural areas. Social 

Sciences, 7(3), 125. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20180703.13 

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in 

Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa 

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and 

Design. In Experiments by Nature and Design. MA: Harvard University Press. 

https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674028845  

Canagarajah, A. Suresh. (2005). Reclaiming the Local in Language Policy and Practice. Lawrence 

Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410611840  

Crystal, D. (2003). English as a Global Language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. 

Doeden, L., & Smidt, L. E. (2024). Adoption of Innovative ELT Strategies by English Language 

Teachers in Rural Laos. IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education, 12(1). 

https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.12.1.07  

Donald, K. H., & Hashim, H. (2025). Exploring Digital Education: Experiential Insights of ESL 

Teachers in Rural Malaysian Schools. International Journal of Research and Innovation in 

Social Science, 9. https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS 

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Secong 

Language Acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

Endriyati, & Abasa, A. (2019). Challenges In Teaching English at Rural and Urban Schools and 

Their Solutions. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 8(10). 

www.ijstr.org 

Fadilah, R., Ayudhia, H. Y., Mansyera Pratama, V., & Harmawan, V. (2023). Teachers’ Teaching 

Reflection: English Teachers’ Challenges in Rural Areas of Indonesia. 13(1). 

https://doi.org/10.18592/let.v13i1.8923  

Febriana, M., Joko, N., Dewi, R., & Muhtia, A. (2018). Understanding Teaching in Rural Indonesian 

Schools: Teachers’ Challenges. International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious 

Understanding, 5(5), 11–20. http://ijmmu.com 

Haleem, A., Javaid, M., Qadri, M. A., & Suman, R. (2022). Understanding the role of digital 

technologies in education: A review. Sustainable Operations and Computers, 3, 275–285. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2022.05.004 

Halik, A. A. F., & Nusrath, R. G. M. (2020). Challenges Faced by ESL Teachers in Teaching English 

to the Students in Rural Schools: A Study Based on Five Rural Schools in the Kinniya 

Education Zone, Trincomalee, Sri Lanka. International Journal of Scientific and Research 

Publications (IJSRP), 10(11), 358–366. https://doi.org/10.29322/ijsrp.10.11.2020.p10744 

Halimi, F., Daniel, C. E., & AlShammari, I. A. (2020). Motivation and Socio-Cultural Milieu of 

Second Language Learners: Considerations Involved in English Teaching. English Language 

Teaching, 13(5), 149. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v13n5p149 

Harlina, H., & Yusuf, F. N. (2020). Challenges of Learning English in Rural School. Jurnal 

Penelitian Pendidikan, 20(3), 325–334. https://doi.org/10.17509/jpp.v20i3.28191  

Kadel, P. B. (2024). Challenges in Teaching English Speaking and Listening Skills in Rural Nepal. 

Voice: A Biannual & Bilingual Journal, 16(2), 128–142. 

https://doi.org/10.3126/voice.v16i2.72782 

 

https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2497142
https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20180703.13
https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674028845
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410611840
https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.12.1.07
https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS
https://doi.org/10.18592/let.v13i1.8923
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2022.05.004
https://doi.org/10.29322/ijsrp.10.11.2020.p10744
https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v13n5p149
https://doi.org/10.17509/jpp.v20i3.28191
https://doi.org/10.3126/voice.v16i2.72782


ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 76 

 Vol. 8, No. 2, August 2025, pp. 66-77 

 Candrawati, A, C. & Purbani, W. (Teaching English in rural settings: A systematic review of…..) 

Kumar, M. (2024). Challenges and Solutions in English Language Teaching (ELT) in Rural Settings: 

A Case Study in India. RESEARCH REVIEW International Journal of Multidisciplinary, 9(1), 

75–82. https://doi.org/10.31305/rrijm.2024.v09.n01.010 

Kusuma, I. P. I. (2022). EFL Teachers’ Online Teaching in Rural Schools during the COVID-19 

Pandemic: Stories from Indonesia. Studies in English Language and Education, 9(1), 203–221. 

https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v9i1.21239 

Laila, F. N., Prastiwi, Y., & Fauziati, E. (2023). Challenges of Teaching English for Elementary 

School Student in Indonesian Rural Areas. JPI (Jurnal Pendidikan Indonesia), 12(3), 436–443. 

https://doi.org/10.23887/jpiundiksha.v12i3.57804 

Marouli, C. (2021). Sustainability Education for the Future? Challenges and Implications for 

Education and Pedagogy in the 21st Century. Sustainability, 13(5), 1–15. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052901 

Mncube, D. W., Mkhasibe, R. G., & Ajani, O. A. (2021). Teaching in English across the Curriculum: 

A Lived Experiences of the Novice Teachers in A Selected Rural Fet Schools in South Africa. 

International Journal of Higher Education, 10(6), 72. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v10n6p72 

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, 

L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., 

Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, 

D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic 

Reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.001 

Persichitte, K. A., Suparman, A., & Spector, M. (2018). Educational Communications and 

Technology: Issues and Innovations. http://www.springer.com/series/11824 

Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide 

(M. Petticrew & H. Roberts, Eds.). Blackwell Publishing. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754887  

Poudel, A. P. (2022). Information and Communication TechnologY in English Language Teaching: 

Some Opportunities and Challenges. Journal of Comparative & International Higher 

Education, 14(4). https://doi.org/10.32674/jcihe.v14i4.3874 

Rosyida, E., Natalya, F., & Avivah, S. (2024). Navigating Global Standards: Assessing English 

Teacher Quality in Rural Areas-Challenges and Opportunities. ZAHRA: Research And Tought 

Elmentary School of Islam Journal, 5(2), 190–204. https://doi.org/10.37812/zahra.v5i2.1674  

Saha, M. (2023). English teachers’ attitudes towards learners: Effects on the rural pedagogies in 

Bangladesh. Ampersand, 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2022.100107 

Saiful, J. A., & Triyono, S. (2018). EFL Teachers’ Reflection in Teaching English to EFL Students 

of Rural Areas. International Journal of Language Education, 2(2), 1–13. 

https://doi.org/10.26858/ijole.v2i2.5637 

Saputri, Y. E., & Sukarno. (2024). Teacher’s Challenges and Strategies in Teaching English in Rural 

Areas. Formosa Journal of Sustainable Research, 3(9), 2011–2018. 

https://doi.org/10.55927/fjsr.v3i9.11494 

Schuelka, M. J., & Engsig, T. T. (2022). On the Question of Educational Purpose: Complex 

Educational Systems Analysis for Inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 

26(5), 448–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1698062 

Pramesty, S. N., Maghfiroh, A., & Atiek Mustikawati, D. (2022). Teachers’ Challenges in Teaching 

English to Young Learners in Rural Area. AL-ISHLAH: Jurnal Pendidikan, 14(4), 5283–5292. 

https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v14i4.1517 

Singh, R. B. (2024). Navigating English Language Education Challenges in Resource-limited 

Contexts. KMC Journal, 6(1), 135–152. https://doi.org/10.3126/kmcj.v6i1.62336 

https://doi.org/10.31305/rrijm.2024.v09.n01.010
https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v9i1.21239
https://doi.org/10.23887/jpiundiksha.v12i3.57804
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052901
https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v10n6p72
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.001
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754887
https://doi.org/10.32674/jcihe.v14i4.3874
https://doi.org/10.37812/zahra.v5i2.1674
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2022.100107
https://doi.org/10.26858/ijole.v2i2.5637
https://doi.org/10.55927/fjsr.v3i9.11494
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1698062
https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v14i4.1517
https://doi.org/10.3126/kmcj.v6i1.62336


77 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 
         Vol. 8, No. 2, August 2025, pp. 66-77 

 Candrawati, A, C. & Purbani, W. (Teaching English in rural settings: A systematic review of…..) 

Zein, S., Sukyadi, D., Hamied, F. A., & Lengkanawati, N. S. (2020). English Language Education in 

Indonesia: A Review of Research (2011-2019). Language Teaching, 53(4), 491–523. 

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000208 

Zeng, J., & Yang, J. (2024). English language Hegemony: Retrospect and Prospect. Humanities and 

Social Sciences Communications, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02821-z 

 

 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000208
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02821-z

