Systematic Review (2003–2023): Exploring Technology-Supported Cross-Cultural Learning through Review Studies

Abstract

Technology-supported cross-cultural learning (TSCCL) is essential for effective intercultural communication, fostering global understanding, and facilitating collaboration in an interconnected world. Although previous studies and review articles have explored this field, a comprehensive analysis of trends and key findings in these reviews is lacking. This study aims to fill this gap by conducting a thorough examination of existing review studies. We employed a narrative synthesis approach consisting of three phases: preparation, organization, and abstraction. We selected and systematically reviewed thirty-one review articles published in twenty-five journals between 2003 and 2023. Our findings highlight key aspects of the reviewed articles, such as keywords, databases, selection criteria, theoretical foundations, content analysis, research questions, findings, and limitations related to technology-supported cross-cultural learning. We found that the researchers used various strategies for literature searches, including single, double, or multiple keywords depending on the study’s focus. The most commonly used keywords were telecollaboration, intercultural, communication, competence, language learning, and technology, indicating their significance in current research and practice. The number of papers reviewed varied across studies, as did the timeframe coverage, ranging from a few years to several decades. Researchers employed different databases, with Web of Science, ERIC, Scopus, and Google Scholar being the most popular choices. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were established to ensure methodological rigor and relevance. Theoretical foundations, such as the telecollaboration model and intercultural communicative competence model, were frequently employed. Open coding was the dominant content analysis approach used. Research questions were present in some studies but not explicitly stated in others. These findings shed light on the strategies and considerations used by researchers in conducting review studies on technology-supported cross-cultural learning, providing guidance for future research. The study presents a reference table encompassing all previously published reviews, which can be valuable for future scholars. By gaining insights from past studies and identifying unexplored research avenues, researchers can benefit from this report. Additionally, the implications and suggestions derived from this review study are valuable for educators and researchers in the TSCCL field. This review addresses gaps in the existing literature and contributes to advancing knowledge in the field of TSCCL.

1. Introduction

Cross-cultural learning is a phenomenon that emerges in our interconnected world, fueled by the availability of spaces and platforms for interaction [1,2,3,4,5,6]. According to Yamazaki and Kayes [7], this type of learning involves the interaction between individuals and different cultures, emphasizing the intricate relationship between culture, learning, and successful adaptation in cross-cultural environments. Çiftçi [8] and Talalakina [9] explained cross-cultural learning as a process encompassing the transmission of cultural nuances, fostering cross-cultural communication and open-mindedness, offering tools for effective communication in diverse contexts, and enabling the acquisition of cross-cultural knowledge through scenarios or models. Through activities, such as reading, simulations, watching videos (indirect communication), and interacting with individuals from different cultures (direct communication), learners can engage with cultural diversity and facilitate cross-cultural learning [10,11,12,13].

The capabilities of technology empower cross-cultural learning by overcoming existing obstacles, providing immersive experiences, customizing learning, and fostering global connections [14,15,16,17,18,19]. With the aid of technology, learners have the opportunity to delve into, comprehend, and appreciate diverse cultures, enhancing their cross-cultural competencies and preparing them for a globalized world [20,21,22,23]. For example, technology provides access to a vast array of resources, such as online libraries, digital databases, and educational platforms, which offer cross-cultural materials [8,11,24,25]. This addresses the challenge of limited resources, ensuring that learners can access a wide range of information, perspectives, and cultural content, regardless of their geographical location [5]. Immersive experiences facilitated by certain technologies, like virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR), allow learners to explore different cultures, visit historical sites, engage in virtual exchanges, and participate in diverse cultural practices, all from within their learning environment [6,24,26,27,28,29]. These simulated encounters foster greater cultural understanding and empathy [18,30]. Furthermore, technology-driven platforms, such as online discussion forums, video conferencing, and collaborative workspaces, enable learners from diverse cultures to collaborate, communicate, and exchange ideas seamlessly [11,20,31,32,33,34]. By overcoming geographical barriers, these platforms facilitate real-time interactions, nurturing cross-cultural comprehension and promoting teamwork [35,36,37,38,39].

Technology-supported cross-cultural learning has garnered significant attention from educators and researchers [5,20,35,40,41]. Empirical studies e.g., [5,20] and review studies e.g., [11,22,23,38,42] have been conducted to summarize findings on cross-cultural learning supported by technology or on articles related to this field. For example, various types of review studies have been carried out in this area, including systematic reviews e.g., [43], critical reviews e.g., [38], scoping reviews e.g., [35], bibliometric analyses e.g., [44], and literature reviews with meta-analyses e.g., [45]. Interestingly, no study has examined existing review studies on technology-supported cross-cultural learning.

A review study serves as a comprehensive survey of existing research on a particular topic, offering an overarching perspective on the current state of knowledge and thought. These studies are often paralleled with primary research in terms of their commitment to systematic approaches, transparency in methodology, reliability of findings, and replicability of results. This ensures that review studies maintain a high standard of academic rigor, similar to that expected in original research. To provide a comprehensive understanding of the current state of research, a review of review studies is an appropriate approach for assessing whether the existing evidence is complete or incomplete [46]. Reviews of review studies involve systematically examining and summarizing a collection of review studies [26]. Currently, there is a lack of comprehensive guidance on best practices for conducting reviews of review studies [24]. Reviews of review studies are increasingly utilized to synthesize evidence from review studies, which can be challenging due to variations in findings and focuses across publications [47]. The primary purposes of reviews of review studies are twofold: (1) to identify the most robust evidence base by evaluating the quality of synthesized research, and (2) to summarize the existing evidence on a particular subject as reflected in available reviews [48].

The process of conducting a review of review studies involves the following [48]: (a) establishing a specific scope for the research, (b) strategically searching for the relevant synthesis literature, (c) taking into account the timeliness of the literature, (d) managing any overlap among the included reviews, (e) utilizing quality assessment tools to select appropriate reviews, and (f) devising effective strategies for synthesizing and reporting the substantial amount of collected data.

The present review of review studies was guided by the abovementioned steps. The present study aims to fill an existing gap in the literature concerning TSCCL by reviewing relevant review articles published within the past two decades. Its primary contribution lies in providing much-needed and timely information in the field of TSCCL. The findings of this study can benefit researchers and educators in the field, offering valuable guidance for conducting similar reviews of review studies and utilizing TSCCL effectively. In our study, we attempted to address the following research questions:

(1)

What are the trends and patterns in the selection and usage of keywords, databases, and selection criteria in research on technology-supported cross-cultural learning?

(2)

How do different theoretical foundations inform the conceptual frameworks and approaches used in studying technology-supported cross-cultural learning?

(3)

What insights and implications can be derived from content analysis of research articles on technology-supported cross-cultural learning, and how do they contribute to our understanding of the field?

(4)

What are the prevalent research questions that have been explored in the field of technology-supported cross-cultural learning?

(5)

What findings have emerged from existing studies on technology-supported cross-cultural learning?

(6)

What are the limitations and gaps in the existing studies on technology-supported cross-cultural learning, and how do they inform future research directions in this field?

We reviewed 31 review studies focused on technology-supported cross-cultural learning. The goal was to conduct a review of review studies that would facilitate a rapid mapping of findings to better understand the existing research landscape, identify gaps, highlight areas that require further investigation, and propose avenues for improvement [47]. This review study goes beyond the existing research in several significant ways. Notably, this review of review studies stands out as it is the first to specifically focus on the review of review studies in the context of TSCCL, making it unique and distinct from other studies. While our review of review studies did not examine empirical studies, its primary focus was on reviewing related review studies. Furthermore, our study has the potential to serve as a future guideline due to its relative ease of understanding and implementation, increasing the likelihood of its practical utilization [46].

As we delve into the intricacies of TSCCL, it is imperative to recognize its profound implications for sustainability. The interaction between individuals from diverse cultures, as facilitated by TSCCL, not only enriches global learning experiences but also cultivates a more socially and environmentally conscious global citizenry. In an era where sustainability challenges transcend national and cultural boundaries, the ability to understand, appreciate, and engage with diverse perspectives becomes crucial. This research, through its comprehensive review of the TSCCL literature, serves as a catalyst for advancing sustainable practices in education and communication. By equipping learners with the tools for effective communication and understanding in diverse contexts, TSCCL plays a pivotal role in fostering a global mindset that is essential for addressing the multifaceted challenges of sustainability. Our study, therefore, is not just an academic exercise; it is a significant step towards integrating sustainability into the fabric of cross-cultural education, leveraging technology to build bridges across cultural divides and pave the way for a more sustainable future.

2. Methodology

The process of conducting a rigorous and systematic review of review studies, as outlined in the Best Practice Guidelines and Essential Methodological Steps to Conduct Rigorous and Systematic Meta-Reviews by Hennessy et al. [48], involves six essential steps, namely (1) clearly defining the scope of the review of review studies, (2) conducting a strategic search to identify the relevant synthesis literature, (3) considering the currency of the literature to ensure its relevance, (4) addressing any overlap among the included reviews, (5) selecting and applying appropriate quality assessment tools for the reviews, and (6) determining suitable approaches for synthesizing and reporting the substantial amount of data collected during the research process. Figure 1 illustrates the research methodology employed in this study.

2.1. Scope of the Review of Review Studies

When embarking on a review of review studies, it is essential to establish the scope by addressing four key questions: (1) When is the literature suitable for a review of review studies? (2) What characteristics make a topic suitable for a review of review studies? (3) What strengths and weaknesses can be identified in previous reviews, if any? And (4) Does the research team possess the necessary capacity to conduct a review of review studies? The scope of a research review of studies can vary significantly depending on these factors.

For this particular study, we conducted a search of articles in the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases in September, 2023. These databases are not merely recognized but are esteemed in the academic community for their unparalleled breadth and depth of coverage across a multitude of disciplines, including but not limited to linguistics, education, and communication. This is not just an opinion but a well-documented fact, as evidenced by authoritative studies, like those of Barbosa and Ferreira-Lopes [14] and Peng et al. [44]. These databases distinguish themselves not only by indexing an extensive array of reputable journals but also by providing exhaustive and meticulously curated access to scholarly literature, a claim substantiated by the meticulous research of Ivenz and Klimova [10] and Kolm et al. [33]. Given their proven track record of reliability and comprehensive coverage, it is no surprise that these databases are the go-to sources for researchers worldwide. They are not just resources but foundational tools for conducting robust literature reviews and underpinning scholarly research with credible, peer-reviewed information.

Our focus was to review studies that examined technology-supported cross-cultural learning and were published in the last twenty years (between 2003 and 2023). The review process involved two experienced researchers.

2.2. Strategic Search of the Review of Review Studies

We specifically focused on review articles rather than empirical studies. The screening process involved reviewing the titles and abstracts of each article and applying inclusion and exclusion criteria based on various dimensions, as outlined in

Table 1. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria.

Dimensions	Inclusion	Exclusion
Publication year	Publication between 2003–2023	Publication before 2003
Source type	Peer-reviewed journal articles	Non-peer-reviewed journal
Language	Only English-language articles	Non-English articles
Context	Only review studies focused on TSCCL	Not related to a review of TSCCL

[35,43]. To refine our search for articles, we employed a keyword strategy using Boolean operators, as outlined by Bozkurt et al. [49], specifically targeting review studies on TSCCL. Guided by key literature in the field of TSCCL and following best practices in research keyword selection, as outlined in recent studies [31,43,50], we meticulously formulated our search terms: (Review OR bibliometric analysis) AND (culture OR cross-cultural OR intercultural competence OR intercultural communication OR intercultural communicative competence OR intercultural exchange OR intercultural language learning) AND (computer-mediated communication OR telecollaboration OR online intercultural exchange OR teletandem OR educational technology OR technology). We carefully crafted our search terms to comprehensively cover the scope and intricacies of the subject matter. This meticulous selection aimed to encapsulate the core aspects of TSCCL, while also guaranteeing that our search was thorough, pinpointing studies that are directly relevant and significant to the field. Our searching approach yielded 391 articles from Google Scholar, 377 from Web of Science, and 365 from Scopus, totaling 1133 articles.

We then refined this pool by considering the publication date, which led to the exclusion of 300 articles, leaving 833. The next step was to assess these based on the source type and publication language, further narrowing down the sample to 52 articles. The final stage of our selection process involved a thorough review of the title and abstract of each article. This rigorous process ensured that we only included empirical studies directly relevant to our review, resulting in a final selection of 31 empirical studies on TSCCL.

2.3. Timeliness of the Literature

Our focus was on review studies related to technology-supported cross-cultural learning published between 2003 and 2023. The issue of timeliness is significant in multiple aspects of our study. Firstly, we took into account the search dates of the included reviews and the publication dates of the primary studies analyzed in those reviews. Additionally, if there were no recent systematic reviews available in the specific area of interest, it may be necessary to conduct a new systematic review rather than a review of review studies. This ensures that the search is up to date and includes the most current evidence available.

2.4. Included Review Studies

Applying the selection criteria, a total of 31 review articles were chosen for this study. These articles were published in 25 different international journals, namely AIMS Electronics and Electrical Engineering, CALICO Journal, Computer Assisted Language Learning, Computers in Human Behavior, Contemporary Educational Technology, Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Technology-Enhanced Language Learning, Culture & Language, Education and Information Technologies, Educational Research Review, Educational Review, Educational Technology & Society, English Language Teaching, Frontiers in Psychology, Interactive Learning Environments, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, International Journal of Society, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Journal of Educational Technology & Online Learning, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, Journal of Studies in International Education, Journal of Virtual Exchange, Open Research Online, ReCALL, Sustainability, and Universal Access in the Information Society.

2.5. Choosing and Applying Review Quality Tools

To ensure the effectiveness of the review process, it is crucial for the review team members to have a good understanding of the synthesis literature and how it should be reported. In this study, we utilized a standardized tool, namely the Best Practice Guidelines and Essential Methodological Steps to Conduct Rigorous and Systematic Meta-Reviews [48]. This tool provided us with a recommended protocol and practical tips for conducting a review of review studies. It served as a valuable resource to guide our review process.

2.6. Synthesis and Reporting

Before presenting the outcome findings, it is important in research to first include descriptive information about each of the included reviews and assess their quality [48]. In this study, we employed narrative synthesis as our synthesis option. This approach consists of three phases: (1) the preparation phase, where the reviewers select an appropriate and representative unit of analysis from the pool of included studies; (2) the organization phase, where open coding is used to create categories and abstract relevant information; (3) the abstraction phase, where the author systematically formulates a general description of the data by generating categories and grouping similar features together.

In the present study, during the preparation phase, the research team engaged in data immersion by thoroughly reading the 31 selected review studies multiple times. In the organization phase, content analysis of the chosen articles was conducted using the open coding approach [51]. To facilitate this process, several coding schemes were created, including keywords, number of reviewed papers, timeframe, databases used, selection criteria, theory used, content analysis applied, research questions, findings, and limitations. In the abstraction phase, the team manually identified 12 coding categories from each article, recorded the findings in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, and subsequently reported all the gathered findings in the results and discussion section of the study.

3. Result and Discussion

3.1. Keywords, Databases, and Selection Criteria

3.1.1. Keywords, Number of Papers, and Timeframe

The results related to keywords, number of papers, and timeframe are reported in Appendix A. Only one study did not report the search string, key term, or keyword used to conduct a literature search [37] because it aimed to review the use of mainstream technology in social media in language teaching and learning from articles published in Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL). Two studies applied a single keyword to search the literature, e.g., Manca and Ranierit [38] used “Facebook” as the only keyword in their study and identified 147 articles published between 2012 and 2015. Çiftçi and Savas [8] used “telecollaboration” as the only search string and found 17 articles from target journals. Two articles applied double keywords or used two keywords in their literature search, e.g., Zhao [45] reviewed nine articles published between 1997 and 2001 based on the criteria for inclusion in the review of review studies where articles were retrieved by using “computer-assisted language learning” and “second language” keywords. Piri and Riyahi [30] qualitatively synthesized 25 articles published from 2007 to 2017 and mainly used “cross-culture/al” and “interculture/al” keywords. The remaining articles (n = 25) included multiple keywords (i.e., more than two). Çiftçi [31] synthesized 26 studies published between 2004 and 2014. They found them using such keywords as intercultural learning, cross-cultural learning, intercultural competence, intercultural understanding, and intercultural exchange. The remaining search string (e.g., intercultural, cross-cultural, multicultural) was related to the substantive focus of the review. Some studies focused more on the technology used in the review (360-degree video, social networking, and virtual reality).

The results show that the most frequent keywords are telecollaboration or telecollaborative, intercultural communication, intercultural competence, intercultural communicative competence, online intercultural exchange, virtual exchange, cross-cultural learning, virtual reality, language learning, and technology. The reason why these keywords are the most frequently used by the researchers is because of their importance and relevance in current research and practice within the fields of linguistics, education, and communication [8]. They reflect the ongoing efforts to enhance intercultural understanding, language learning, and the integration of technology in educational contexts [45]. This finding can help researchers and practitioners to determine what keywords can be used in a study based on the research topic [52].

The results show that scholars reviewed different numbers of articles in their studies. Peng et al. [44] reviewed the highest number of articles (n = 663), followed by Parmaxi and Zaphiris [53] (n = 163), Manca and Ranieri [38] (n = 147), and Barrot [54] (n = 96) and O’Dowd [55] (n = 96). The lowest number of articles was reviewed in Jiang et al. [11] (n = 5) and Ivenz and Klimova [10] (n = 8). According to the results, scholars had different timeframe coverage of reviewed articles; the longest one was in Lewis and O’Dowd [55] (n = 25) and in Akiyama and Cunningham [35] and Hein et al. [56] (n = 20), whereas the shortest one was in O’Dowd [55] and Parmaxi and Zaphiris [53] (n = 1). Our findings, however, do not show any correlation among our variables, i.e., the number of keywords, papers, and timeframe. For example, Peng et al. [44] used 3 keywords to retrieve 663 articles published within 18 years (i.e., between 2000 and 2018), and Lewis and O’Dowd [34] used 4 keywords to retrieve 76 articles published within 25 years (i.e., from 1990 to 2015). Zhao [45] used 2 keywords to retrieve 9 articles published within 5 years (i.e., from 1997 to 2001) and Barrot [54] used 44 keywords to retrieve 96 articles published within 12 years (i.e., between 2008 to 2019). This is contrary to notions proposed by researchers, such as that the longer the timeframe, the more papers can be found because the proportion of relevant papers will increase [57] or using many keywords when searching for articles may result in a minimal number of retrieved articles [58]. However, our findings suggest that the keyword or search string is contingent on the study’s topic, purpose, and scope. Another suggestion is to use a certain pattern, synonym, and certain formulations [23,54], which can help the researcher to find more related studies.

3.1.2. Databases

Databases were reported in all 31 review studies (Appendix B). We found that the following databases were most frequently used in reviewed review studies: (1) Web of Science (n = 15) e.g., [8], (2) Education Resources Information Centre (ERIC) (n = 10) e.g., [31], (3) Scopus (n = 7) e.g., [54], and (4) Google Scholar (n = 5) e.g., [35]. Such databases as DOAJ, JSTOR, Baidu Scholar, SSCI, or ProQuest were only used once. It should be noted that the frequency of database use can vary based on various factors, including their scope, coverage, accessibility, and relevance to the research topics [26]. For example, databases, such as Web of Science, ERIC, and Scopus, are widely recognized for their extensive coverage across various disciplines, including linguistics, education, and communication [14,44]. These databases are known for indexing a large number of reputable journals and providing comprehensive access to scholarly literature [10,33]. As a result, researchers often turn to these databases as primary sources for their literature reviews and research. On the other hand, certain databases are specifically designed to cater to the needs of particular fields or sub-disciplines. For example, ERIC is a prominent database for education research, and LLBA [Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts) focuses specifically on linguistics and language-related studies [23,33]. Researchers in these fields are more likely to use these databases due to their specialized content and relevance to their research interests. The frequency of database use can also vary based on individual researcher preferences, institutional access, and the specific research objectives of each study.

We also found that scholars employ multiple databases (i.e., from one to six) in their review studies. This is because researchers want to ensure comprehensive coverage of the relevant literature in their field.

In our analysis, we expanded on previous studies by investigating the practical application of database retrieval. Through this investigation, we identified various methods used to utilize these databases in 31 review studies. Fortunately, there are numerous databases available (such as Web of Science, ERIC, Scopus, Google Scholar, etc.). It is advised to prioritize databases that specialize in academic sources and employ multiple databases to increase the likelihood of retrieving a greater number of articles for future research endeavors.

3.1.3. Selection Criteria

The review studies implemented a variety of inclusion and/or exclusion criteria (see Appendix B). The number of inclusion criteria ranged from two to nine, and as for exclusion criteria, studies employed a range from zero (or unspecified) to nine exclusion criteria. The development of inclusion/exclusion criteria required careful consideration of several factors: (1) study rigor (n = 10) (e.g., inclusion of peer-reviewed studies), (2) publication types (n = 17) (e.g., inclusion of only Scopus- or Web of Science-indexed journal studies), (3) publication years (n = 21) (e.g., 2014 to 2020), (4) relevance to research questions (n = 17) (e.g., technology-enhanced intercultural learning), (5) participant characteristics (n = 8) (e.g., undergraduate students, secondary students, etc.), (6) contexts (n = 3) (e.g., higher education), (7) research design (n = 18) (e.g., empirical studies utilizing qualitative or quantitative research methods), and (8) language of publication (n = 19) (e.g., English). The establishment of these inclusion and exclusion criteria ensures methodological rigor, relevance, and focus in the review studies, enabling researchers to draw meaningful and reliable conclusions from the selected body of literature [43]. For example, by including only peer-reviewed studies obtained from Web of Science- or Scopus-indexed journals, researchers can maintain a certain level of quality and credibility in the literature they analyze [14]. Peer-reviewed studies undergo rigorous evaluation by experts in the field, enhancing the reliability and validity of the findings. Setting a specific range of publication years allows researchers to focus on the most recent relevant literature and capture the latest advancements and insights in the field. It also helps ensure that the review study remains up-to-date. Inclusion criteria based on relevance to research questions help maintain a tight focus on the specific aspects being investigated. This ensures that the selected studies contribute directly to addressing the research objectives and provide insights that are pertinent to the study’s purpose.

It is recommended that future review studies adhere to these commonly used inclusion and exclusion criteria. It is important to note that defining such criteria enhances the likelihood of generating reliable and reproducible results, minimizes potential harm to participants, and safeguards against the exploitation of vulnerable individuals.

3.2. Theoretical Foundation

The theoretical foundations utilized in the 31 review articles can be found in Appendix B. The findings revealed the presence of 21 different theoretical foundations. The most frequently employed theoretical foundation was intercultural communicative competence (ICC) (n = 6) and telecollaboration for supporting cross-cultural learning (n = 5). Telecollaboration involves learners from different cultural contexts collaborating online to enhance linguistic, social, communicative, and intercultural skills. Wu [22] conducted a review on professional learning opportunities for teachers, while Akiyama and Cunningham [35] highlighted the use of telecollaboration for online intercultural exchange. Barbosa and Ferreira-Lopes (2021) [14] suggested the need for effective telecollaboration projects that support language and intercultural learning. Challenges and imperfections are inherent in such projects. Intercultural communicative competence (ICC) encompasses effective communication in diverse cultural contexts, emphasizing openness, skills, knowledge, and valuing others’ beliefs [59]. Developing each aspect of ICC or improving specific aspects is important, considering real-world variations [60].

Byram’s model was used twice, while the remaining theories were each used once (e.g., BehaveFIT framework, integration theory, bilingual–bicultural models, second language acquisition theory, sociocultural theory, constructivism theory, situated learning theory, etc.).

3.3. Content Analysis

Appendix B provides the results related to the content analysis employed in the review studies. Content analysis is a research tool used to identify specific words, themes, or concepts within qualitative data. Open coding emerged as the most prevalent content analysis approach [51]. Fifteen studies utilized this coding method e.g., [31,43]. The remaining articles each employed one specific tool, e.g., a coding book e.g., [35], constructivist grounded theory approach (GT) e.g., [8], qualitative emergent approach e.g., [30], or thematic coding e.g., [22]. Figure 2 provides an overview of the tools utilized in the review studies.

Open coding, widely used in technology-supported cross-cultural learning review studies, enhances understanding of research questions and aids in organizing findings [43]. When employing this method, information segments are generated based on relevant categories [51]. The coding process involves reading articles, coding data, and grouping them into categories, thus organizing the results in a review study. Researchers often build upon previous coding schemes e.g., [61], and are encouraged to explore thematic coding to enrich the literature.

3.4. Research Questions

Among the 31 reviewed articles (refer to Appendix C), eight studies did not specify their research questions e.g., [36,53,55], while the other 22 studies had them. The number of research questions in each study ranged from two to eight. The research questions can be categorized into several main themes. Telecollaboration: These research questions focus on the arrangements, participants, and changes in telecollaboration projects, as well as the impact of Web 2.0 tools on intercultural communicative competence and the use of social media as a language learning environment. For instance, Akiyama and Cunningham [35] investigated the typical arrangements of SCMC-based telecollaboration. Intercultural studies: The research questions in this theme explore the technologies, participants, contexts, and findings in intercultural studies, as well as the effects of virtual immersive learning environments on learning. Çiftçi [31] addressed the research question of what kinds of technologies were used in intercultural studies. Enhancing intercultural communicative competence: These research questions focus on activities to promote intercultural communicative competence and the competencies required for effective intercultural communication in higher education. For example, Ivenz and Klimova [10] investigated the types of activities that can enhance the development of intercultural communicative competence. Research methodologies: The research questions in this theme pertain to the analysis of specific research studies, methodologies, and outcomes, as well as the use of VR technology, social networking sites (SNS), and telecollaboration projects. Shadiev et al. [62] explored the methodology used in cross-cultural studies. The general topics theme encompasses two main areas of inquiry. Firstly, it explores the characteristics of scientific literature and research trends. Secondly, it investigates the use of technology in language learning and teacher training. For instance, Barrot [54] examined the following research question: What are the specific characteristics of scientific literature? By organizing the research questions into these themes, we can better understand the key areas of inquiry and the specific focus of each study.

A well-crafted research question maintains the reader’s interest and focuses on the specific topic, outlines the minor questions that need to be addressed, guides the selection of reading sources or data, and provides direction for future studies. The lack of explicit research questions in eight studies hampers readers’ understanding of the research’s focus. Therefore, it is recommended that future studies follow the example set by previous research and explicitly state their research ideas e.g., [22,31,43,54].

3.5. Findings

The findings from the review studies are reported in Appendix C. The findings collectively highlight the positive impact of telecollaboration and online intercultural exchanges on language learning, intercultural competence development, and learner autonomy. Some patterns can be derived from the findings. Participants: 113 cultural groups from 25 countries participated, with the USA, Germany, and Spain being prominent. English was the most common first language, but other languages emerged after 2010. Projects: Monolingual and bilingual projects were common, while multilingual and lingua franca projects were less frequent. Project duration averaged 10.54 weeks. Modalities included text-based, video/audio chat, and audio-graphic. Interaction: The five formation types of interaction were 1 vs. 1, 1–2 vs. 1, small group, mid-size group, and class vs. class. Information exchange tasks were common, while language-focused tasks were less so. Some projects designated language usage, while others allowed choice. Technology: Web 2.0 tools (blogs, Facebook), discussion boards, videoconferencing (Skype, Zoom), wikis, blogging, and VR technologies (Second Life, OpenSimulator) were used. Asynchronous communication was more prevalent. Research: Studies were mostly from the USA, Spain, Brazil, China, and the UK. Evaluation methods included questionnaires, surveys, interviews, content analysis, and observation. Instruction: Designs included telecollaboration, PBL, collaborative learning using wikis, and online projects. Evaluation methods included questionnaires, content analysis, standardized questionnaires, and self-assessment. Focus: Studies focused on ICC and language development. Online exchanges fostered critical cultural awareness and positive attitudes. The importance of teacher education, collaboration, technical skills, and careful design was emphasized. Other findings: Other noteworthy findings included speech recognition technology in language learning, teacher education, virtual communities of practice, technical skills, and competencies. Scholars emphasized the necessity for special technical skills, competencies, and careful instructional design and implementation.

Based on the aforementioned findings and patterns, the following recommendations can be offered to educators and researchers in the field of technology-supported cross-cultural learning. Emphasize diversity in participants: Educators and researchers need to recognize the significance of including participants from various cultural backgrounds and language groups. Encouraging participation from underrepresented cultural groups and less commonly taught languages will promote diversity and inclusivity [11,40,61,62]. Explore different project set-ups: Educators and researchers need to move beyond traditional monolingual or bilingual models and consider multilingual and lingua franca projects. This provides learners with opportunities to engage in diverse language contexts, broadening their language skills and cultural understanding [34]. Incorporate various communication modalities: Educators and researchers need to incorporate a variety of communication modalities, such as video chat, audio chat, and text-based interactions. Utilizing different tools and platforms supporting these modalities will provide learners with rich and diverse communication experiences [31,33,43]. Design activities targeting intercultural competence development: Educators and researchers need to create activities and tasks explicitly aimed at fostering intercultural competence. They need to encourage critical reflections, explicit comparisons, and discussions about cultural differences to enhance learners’ intercultural awareness and competence [8,10,14,22,23,35,55]. Explore emerging technologies, like VR and AR: Educators and researchers need to investigate the potential of emerging technologies, such as VR, AR, and immersive environments, in facilitating telecollaborative interactions. They need to explore how these technologies can enhance language learning, intercultural understanding, and engagement in telecollaboration projects [6,39,56]. Stay informed about research trends and developments: Educators and researchers need to stay updated on the latest research trends and developments in telecollaboration and computer-mediated communication. Additionally, they need to keep themselves informed about emerging technologies, new methodologies, and innovative practices to ensure that telecollaboration projects are informed by current research findings [38,54]. By considering these suggestions, educators and researchers can enhance the effectiveness and impact of telecollaboration initiatives, contributing to the advancement of knowledge in this field.

3.6. Limitations Reported in Reviewed Studies

The review studies identified limitations, which are listed in Appendix D. Two studies did not explicitly state any limitations. In total, there were 31 limitations categorized into the following themes: diversity and representation (n = 4), methodological limitations (n = 5), generalizability and scope (n = 3), small number of studies (n = 4), language limitations (n = 2), data sources and availability (n = 4), and other limitations (n = 9). Diversity and representation relate to lack of long-term and high-proficiency TC projects, insufficient research on LCTLs, and a shortage of multilingual and lingua franca projects. Methodological limitations include lack of methodological triangulation, limited inclusion of databases/journals/years, narrow focus on keywords, and multiple foci hindering the study’s specificity. For example, limited scope, limited databases, and limited keywords were reported by Barbosa and Ferreira-Lopes [14]. Limitations in generalizability and scope theme cover failure to examine generalizability, analysis confined to specific databases and subject categories, and the bibliometric nature limiting differentiation between formal and informal language learning contexts. A small number of studies relate to a limited number of reviewed studies, selection criteria focusing only on empirical studies, and a restricted scope of discussed themes. For example, Çiftçi [31] mentioned a small number of studies and limited criteria for selection. Language limitations include a restriction to English and German languages, missing findings in other languages, and limited coverage of relevant terms. Limitations related to data sources and availability are the limited databases used, scarcity of available studies, and inclusion/exclusion criteria restricting the study’s scope. For example, Avgousti [43] reported methodological limitations, a limited dataset, limited criteria, and a lack of specificity regarding ICC skills. Finally, other limitations cover such aspects as relatively limited study scope, inclusion of only open access articles, inadequate availability and quantity of projects, heterogeneous reported results limiting synthesis, review confined to specific databases/journals, exclusion of relevant sources, and lack of methodological diversity and empirical exploration in published studies.

Presenting the limitations of review studies serves as valuable insight for educators and researchers who plan to conduct technology-supported cross-cultural learning studies. Summarizing various limitations encountered in the reviewed studies and highlighting gaps and challenges in telecollaboration research, methodology, diversity, generalizability, and data sources is essential. Recognizing these limitations helps identify areas for improvement and future research directions.

4. Conclusions, Recommendation, and Limitations

4.1. Conclusions

In this review study, we examined 31 review articles on technology-supported cross-cultural learning published from 2003 to 2023. The review article was meticulously organized into comprehensive sections, encompassing key themes, such as keywords, number of published papers, article duration, databases utilized, selection criteria, theoretical frameworks, content analysis methodologies, research questions investigated, notable findings, and reported limitations.

Based on the findings related to these themes, several conclusions can be derived. In terms of keywords, the most frequently used keywords in the reviewed studies include telecollaboration, intercultural communication, intercultural competence, virtual exchange, and language learning. These keywords reflect the emphasis on enhancing intercultural understanding, language learning, and the integration of technology in educational contexts. With regard to the number of papers, scholars reviewed a varying number of articles in their studies, ranging from as low as 5 to as high as 663. The number of papers reviewed does not show a clear correlation with the number of keywords or the duration of the study. As for duration, the timeframe coverage of the reviewed articles varied among the studies, with the longest duration spanning 25 years and the shortest duration covering only 1 year. The duration of the study does not necessarily correlate with the number of papers found. Web of Science, ERIC, Scopus, and Google Scholar were the most frequently used databases in the reviewed studies. Researchers prioritized databases known for their extensive coverage and relevance to the research topics. Using multiple databases was common to ensure comprehensive coverage of the relevant literature. Selection criteria (i.e., inclusion and exclusion) were employed to ensure methodological rigor, relevance, and focus in the review studies. Criteria, such as study rigor, publication types, publication years, relevance to research questions, participant characteristics, research design, and language of publication were commonly used. Defining specific criteria helps generate reliable and reproducible results and maintains the focus of the review. Various theoretical foundations were utilized in the reviewed studies, with telecollaboration model and intercultural communicative competence model being the most frequently employed. Theoretical frameworks, such as Byram’s model, behavior frameworks, and sociocultural theory, were also used to guide the studies. In terms of content analysis, open coding was the most prevalent content analysis approach, followed by other methods, such as coding books and thematic coding. Content analysis helped identify specific words, themes, or concepts within the qualitative data and to organize the findings. With regard to research questions, while some studies did not specify their research questions, others had a range of two to eight research questions. The research questions covered themes, such as telecollaboration, intercultural studies, enhancing intercultural communicative competence, research methodologies, and general topics. Well-crafted research questions provide direction and focus for the study. In the findings section, most researchers reported results related to technology-supported cross-cultural learning, while others focused on the role of telecollaboration in supporting intercultural and language learning. In conclusion, the results suggest that researchers consider the relevance and importance of keywords, use appropriate databases, establish clear selection criteria, employ theoretical frameworks, utilize content analysis methods, and define focused research questions when conducting review studies. These practices enhance the quality, reliability, and comprehensiveness of the studies and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the respective fields.

4.2. Our Recommendations

Based on the findings, the following pedagogical suggestions can be given to educators and researchers in the field. First, based on the most frequently used keywords in the literature, such as telecollaboration, intercultural communication, intercultural competence, online intercultural exchange, virtual exchange, cross-cultural learning, virtual reality, language learning, and technology, educators and researchers can consider incorporating these keywords in their own studies to align with current research trends and enhance the relevance of their work. In addition, it is suggested that instead of relying on a single keyword, researchers can consider using multiple keywords or search strings to retrieve a broader range of relevant articles. This approach can help ensure comprehensive coverage of the literature and increase the chances of finding relevant studies. Second, researchers need to prioritize databases that specialize in academic sources and have extensive coverage across relevant disciplines, such as Web of Science, ERIC, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Additionally, utilizing multiple databases can further enhance the likelihood of retrieving a greater number of articles for comprehensive literature reviews. Third, researchers need to carefully develop and apply clear inclusion and exclusion criteria based on factors such as study rigor, publication types, publication years, relevance to research questions, participant characteristics, contexts, research design, and language of publication. These criteria help ensure methodological rigor, relevance, and focus in review studies, leading to meaningful and reliable conclusions. Fourth, researchers can consider incorporating theoretical foundations, such as the telecollaboration model, intercultural communicative competence model, Byram’s model, and other relevant theories in their studies. These theoretical frameworks provide a solid basis for understanding and analyzing the phenomena under investigation and contribute to the theoretical development of the field. Fifth, open coding, as the most prevalent content analysis approach, can be employed to identify specific words, themes, or concepts within qualitative data. Researchers can utilize this method to organize and analyze their findings, enhancing understanding of research questions and facilitating the synthesis of results. Six, researchers need to clearly define their research questions, ensuring they are specific, relevant, and aligned with the objectives of the study. The research questions can be categorized into themes, such as telecollaboration, intercultural studies, enhancing intercultural communicative competence, research methodologies, and general topics. This categorization can help researchers focus their investigations and provide a clear structure for their literature reviews.

In terms of findings, pedagogical suggestions for educators and researchers in technology-supported cross-cultural learning include: (a) emphasizing diversity and representation by including participants from various cultural backgrounds and language groups to promote inclusivity and enrich the learning experience; (b) exploring different project set-ups beyond monolingual or bilingual models, incorporating multilingual and lingua franca projects to provide diverse language contexts and enhance language skills and cultural understanding; (c) incorporating various communication modalities, such as video chat, audio chat, and text-based interactions, utilizing different tools and platforms to offer learners rich and diverse communication experiences; (d) designing activities targeting intercultural competence development by creating tasks that foster critical reflections, explicit comparisons, and discussions about cultural differences, enhancing learners’ intercultural awareness and competence; (e) exploring emerging technologies, like virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR), to investigate their potential in facilitating telecollaborative interactions and enhancing language learning, intercultural understanding, and engagement in projects; (f) staying informed about research trends and developments in telecollaboration and computer-mediated communication, keeping up-to-date with emerging technologies, new methodologies, and innovative practices to inform telecollaboration projects with current research findings.

Our comprehensive analysis of technology-supported cross-cultural learning (TSCCL) not only contributes significantly to the field of intercultural communication and education but also aligns closely with the broader goals of sustainability. In today’s interconnected world, fostering global understanding and collaboration through TSCCL is vital for addressing complex global challenges that require collective action and diverse perspectives. By promoting effective intercultural communication and competence, our research supports the development of a more inclusive and sustainable global community. The insights gained from our review of literature in TSCCL, particularly in terms of identifying unexplored avenues and methodological rigor, provide a robust foundation for future research and educational practices. These practices are essential for cultivating a generation of learners who are not only technologically adept but also culturally competent and environmentally conscious. Thus, our study extends beyond the realm of education and communication, contributing to the sustainability discourse by enabling more effective and empathetic cross-cultural collaborations for a sustainable future.

Additionally, it is important to consider the limitations reported in the reviewed review studies. Educators and researchers should address these limitations and take them into account when planning and conducting technology-supported cross-cultural learning studies. For example, by (a) paying attention to methodological limitations—we need to consider using multiple research methods and triangulation to strengthen the validity of the findings, and include a wide range of databases, journals, and years in the literature review to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the field; (b) expanding the scope and generalizability—we need to strive to examine the generalizability of findings by including diverse databases and subject categories, and considering the differences between formal and informal language learning contexts in the analysis; (c) addressing language limitations—we need to look beyond the English and German languages and consider the inclusion of studies in other languages, as this will broaden the coverage and understanding of the field; (d) increasing the number of studies—we need to encourage more research in the field of technology-supported cross-cultural learning to increase the number of studies available for review, and expand the selection criteria to include both empirical and non-empirical studies; (e) improving data sources and availability—we need to explore a wider range of databases and sources to ensure a comprehensive review of the available literature, and consider open access articles as well as non-open access sources to capture a more diverse range of studies.

By considering these pedagogical suggestions, educators and researchers can conduct more rigorous and relevant studies, contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field, and inform evidence-based practices in education and language teaching. By addressing the reported limitations, educators and researchers can enhance the effectiveness and impact of technology-supported cross-cultural learning initiatives, leading to improved language learning outcomes and intercultural competence development.

4.3. Limitations of the Present Study and Future Works

Acknowledging the limitations of our review study is essential for a comprehensive understanding of its scope and impact. First, the guidelines we used for analyzing various aspects and categories had a somewhat limited explanatory range. Second, our study was based on a restricted selection of databases. Third, we focused exclusively on review studies published in journals, excluding other types of publications. Fourth, the pool of available studies specifically related to technology-supported cross-cultural learning was relatively small; we identified only 31 studies across 25 journals published in the timeframe from 2003 to 2023.

Addressing these limitations in future research could significantly expand the comprehensiveness and depth of the field. Future studies could extend the search to a wider range of databases and include review studies from diverse sources, such as conference proceedings, thus enlarging the pool of relevant research. Additionally, implementing robust quality assurance measures for the selected review articles could enhance the reliability and value of the research findings. This comprehensive approach will not only provide a broader perspective but will also contribute to the enrichment of the field of technology-supported cross-cultural learning.

Future review studies in TSCCL could focus on several key areas. Firstly, an analysis of the evolution of research methodologies in TSCCL, identifying emerging research designs and data analysis techniques, should be considered. Secondly, the impact of recent technological advancements, such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, and augmented reality on TSCCL should be examined. Thirdly, integrating insights from diverse fields, like psychology, sociology, and communication studies to enrich TSCCL research is necessary. Finally, we should review how TSCCL is being incorporated into educational policies, curriculums, and instructional designs, highlighting the integration of cross-cultural learning in various educational settings. These areas promise to significantly contribute to the understanding and advancement of TSCCL practices and theories.