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

: 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.


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].
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 crosscultural 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.

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.
Figure 1.The stages of a review of review studies [48].

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.

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 [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.

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.

Included Review Studies
Applying the selection criteria, a total of 31 review articles were chosen for this study.These articles were published in 25

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.

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.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).

Result and Discussion
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.

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.

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.

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.).

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.

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].

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 crosscultural 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.

Limitations Reported in Reviewed Studies
The review studies identified limitations, which are listed in Appendix B. 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.

Conclusions
In this review study, we examined 31 review articles on technology-supported crosscultural 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.

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 technologysupported 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.

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.Articles were read and the articles focusing on some other issues of language use on social media, the articles on the use of social media and applications designed only for language learning and review articles were excluded.

Appendix C
Table A3.Research questions and findings.

Author(s) Research Question(s) Findings
Akiyama and Cunningham (2018) [35] What are the typical arrangements of SCMC-based telecollaboration (e.g., participants, project set-ups, and interaction set-ups)?How have SCMC-based telecollaboration projects changed over the last two decades?
Participant characteristics: The most frequently reported configurations involved 2 groups of FL learners and 113 cultural groups from 25 unique countries.The USA participated most often, followed by Germany and Spain; about one-third of the cultural groups spoke English as their L1; projects featuring participants who speak languages other than major European languages started to appear after 2010; only 1 less commonly taught language (LCTL) (i.e., languages other than English, Spanish, German, and French) was featured in the top 5; of the 55 study reports, 30 reported participants' FL proficiency level using proficiency bands based on established frameworks, such as Common European Framework of Reference, 7 studies reported the course levels, and 11 studies reported both proficiency and course levels.There were two studies without any reference or courses.Project set-ups: Most of the projects were either monolingual or bilingual in contrast to the paucity of multilingual and lingua franca projects; it was found that the average duration of a project was about 10.54 weeks with an SD of 4.19 weeks.The longest project lasted for 26 weeks, and the project with the shortest duration lasted for 4 weeks; many projects were text-based (k = 23) or combined text chat with video interaction (k = 12).There were also projects that did not use any written modality: video chat only (k = 12), audio chat (k = 2), audio-graphic (k = 2), and both audio and video chat (k = 1); concurrent use of ACMC tools: 62% of ACMC was via email, 16% was via blogs, 14% was via wikis or websites, and 11% was via discussion forums.Only one study used the social networking site Facebook alongside SCMC.

Author(s) Research Question(s) Findings
Interaction set-ups: We identified five types of interaction formation when participants engage in SCMC: (1) 1 vs. 1 (i.e., dyads), (2) 1-2 vs. 1, (3) small group, (4) mid-size group, and (5) class vs. class; many of the projects used information exchange tasks, and language-focused tasks were the least common, while many projects (k = 23) designated when to use which language for how long (e.g., tandem model).Ten studies adopted the bilingual mode, allowing participants to use a language of their choice.
2 Avgousti (2018) [43] What empirical research has been undertaken on the impact of Web 2.0 tools and applications on the intercultural communicative competence of learners of a second or foreign language?How do online intercultural exchanges with Web 2.0 tools and applications affect the development of intercultural communicative competence of learners of a second or foreign language?
The intercultural competences which might have been developed throughout the exchanges, and the role that the tools and their modalities might have had in the development of L2 or FL learners' ICC; some researchers found that the use of critical reflections, explicit comparisons, and questions served as indicators of learning; tools and multimodality, however, affected their ICC skills to a greater extent; the study tends to use the words countries and cultures interchangeably and ignores the multiplicity of several cultures within a nation; challenges encountered included equal participation in tasks, negative attitudes, cultures-of-use' of the tools used, lack of challenging others' views, lack of critical reflection and higher-order thinking, absence of and intercultural awareness or competence.

3
Barbosa and Ferreira-Lopes (2021) [14] Unspecified 254 articles were retrieved; many of the studies were published by affiliated authors from USA universities, while other countries with relevant number are Spain, Brazil, China, and the United Kingdom; journal co-citation shows that the top leading journals in terms of co-citations are the USA, Spain, China, the Netherlands, and the UK, etc.In terms of citations, the most prominent authors are Robert O'Dowd from Universidad de León, in Spain; the research streams that comprise a larger number of studies are language development, intercultural communication, and teacher education; the most frequents word is telecollaboration; the analysis of keywords highlighted the use of two main terms: intercultural competence and learner autonomy; the most used technological sources are blogs, Facebook, social media, digital storytelling, wikis, and Skype.4 Barrot (2021) [54] What are the characteristics of the scientific literature in terms of context, research design, target language, social media use, and orientation of results?What is the research productivity and growth trajectory of scientific literature on social media as a language learning environment in the past 12 years?How is the scientific literature distributed in terms of geographical location and publication venues?How did the topical foci develop over the past decade?
The characteristics of the selected studies in terms of the target language, context, research design, and social media use; research productivity and trajectory; the research productivity in this field between 2008 and 2019 totals 396 documents from 160 source titles; geographically, nearly half of all documents were published by Asian-affiliated scholars.For North America, Europe, Australia, and Oceania, etc., the topical foci have expanded to all social media platforms, but the most consistently explored are Facebook, Skype, YouTube, and Twitter.

5
Çiftçi and Savas (2018) [8] What are the focal research points of telecollaborative projects in terms of language and intercultural learning?What type of participants and contexts are involved in telecollaborative projects?What types of technologies are used in telecollaborative projects?What are the major observable patterns and emerging issues in terms of language and intercultural learning through telecollaboration?
Videoconferencing, email exchanges, learning management systems, and blogs were the most frequently used tools among the studies.In at least two different country contexts, language and intercultural learning were the focal point; the synthesis revealed a prevalence of positive telecollaborative experiences; telecollaboration yielded a strong positive impact on the language learning processes and enabled people to develop their ICC on different levels; telecollaborative projects overall succeeded in fostering existing intercultural and language skills 6 Çiftçi (2016) [31] What kinds of technologies were used in intercultural studies?What type of participants and contexts were involved?How long did the studies take place over?What were the major findings in terms of intercultural learning?How effective were digital technologies to promote intercultural learning?Are there any potential gaps and suggestions for further research directions?
Online discussion boards were the most frequently used ones in the studies, and studies were conducted with participants from at least two different countries or cultures; analyses revealed that most of the participants completed intercultural projects with satisfactory feelings; myriad intercultural opportunities were provided by the studies in terms of learning target culture; intercultural communication through technology triggered learners to develop interculturally; computer-based digital tools enabled people to communicate with people from other cultures without visiting each other; most of the studies in the literature were designed around language learning or teaching; training before the intercultural experience also needs to be designed and implemented carefully; most of the studies took around one semester to be completed.

7
Gallagher and Savage (2013) [36] Unspecified Comparative cross-cultural analysis focus on comparative cultures and comparative communities; there were five common research methodologies used, namely surveying, content analysis, mixed methods, qualitative interviewing, and ethnography.Sampling methods included convenience, maximum variation, snowball, probability, judgment, and random sampling; intra-comparative studies compared different cultures within a single online community 8 Hein et al.
(2021) [56] How are virtual, fully immersive learning environments used for foreign language learning?Which characteristics of immersive technology support foreign language learning?Can virtual, fully immersive learning environments increase motivation and success in learning a foreign language?Can they change participants' attitudes through intercultural encounters?How are they used for teacher training?
Investigation forms included blended learning (BL), experiment (between-design), experiment (within-design), and solely qualitative studies, such as semi-structured interviews; the studies used the AR medium (50%).The next largest share is taken by studies with MUVE's (24%), 13% of the studies showed the 360 contents via an HMD or using Smart Spaces, only 13% of the studies used fully immersive VR applications, and still, none of these studies defined immersion according to the designated definition; most studies compared the findings over time (31%), particularly in blended learning studies or studies with at least two measurement points: learning achievements (examined in 31 studies) and qualitative and subjectively observed measures (examined in 35 studies) accounted for the largest proportions; teachers often found the systems used very motivating and enjoyable.[33] What competencies do students in higher education need to develop during their studies to achieve effective IOC?Which instructional designs are used in higher education to promote the development of IOCCs?how can IOCCs and their development be evaluated?
The competence domains emerging from the literature: ICT mostly used Web 2.0 tools, and Byram's model of intercultural communication is widely used; characteristics, such as openness and perspective-taking, etc., were found to be supportive in communication; self-management and organization, such as planning tasks thoroughly in advance and meeting deadlines, was explored; collaboration, part of collaboration competencies, including intercultural, communication, and self-management competencies, was explored; domain-specific knowledge, including job expertise and technical knowledge, was mandatory for collaboration to achieve shared goals and substantive knowledge in the form of domain-specific competencies to interact in a globally interdependent world.
Instructional designs used to promote IOCCs: Telecollaboration, reviewing articles, critically analyzing examples from online exchanges, and collaboratively designing guidelines and assessment tools to organize a telecollaborative project; PBL, collaborative learning using wikis and online projects.

Author(s) Research Question(s) Findings
Evaluation methods for IOCCs: Evaluating ICT competencies used self-developed questionnaires, which were self-developed and non-standardized, and which measured self-perceived competence using the computer, pre-and postsurvey, on perceived comfort and perceived knowledge for using technology tools, with a questionnaire based on proficiency in technical experimentation; for evaluating intercultural and cultural competencies, they applied content analysis to online forums, interviews, and reports, using Byram model for content analysis, a modified coding scheme for individual and social accountability, cognitive and organizational behaviors, and standardized questionnaires; they self-assessed team processes, communication modes, outcomes, and learning, but did not provide an in-depth description of the questionnaire.

Unspecified
The most-used technologies were asynchronous; one of the primaries aims of online exchange has been second language learning; cultural misunderstanding, miscommunication, and conflict appear early in the literature; there is some evidence that working together in online environments can help learners to become more autonomous with digital literacy.

Manca and
Ranierit (2016) [38] Unspecified Demographics of the studies were coded as studies on the formal use of Facebook in formal learning settings, on informal use in formal learning settings, and use in informal learning settings; Facebook was the most used, while the group, pages, or apps (N = 5) were much less frequently used and were adopted to conduct discussion and peer learning or to share resources.Facebook as a learning tool's popularity was due to the familiarity of Facebook among students and pedagogical reasons (3).Facebook affordances: all three affordances were found to significantly increase along the continuum of formality/informality.

O'Dowd (2016) [55] Unspecified
There is increasing diversity in the way telecollaboration is being integrated; telecollaborative practice have traditionally involved language learners; critical telecollaboration attempts to refocus online intercultural exchange; cross-disciplinary telecollaborative initiatives which engage students; many educators are integrating online intercultural collaboration with other forms of instruction and study programs; there has been a growing demand among practitioners to establish a framework; more than 15 presentations looked explicitly at the role of videoconferencing in telecollaborative interaction.16 Parmaxi and Zaphiris (2016) [53] Unspecified Research in this group focused on the effects of SCMC on learners' cognitive and affective development in a second language (L2); researchers in asynchronous CMC (ACMC) seek to identify and evaluate the affordances of various ACMC modes in L2 development; research in mixed CMC has a comparative aspect in the sense that it sets the affordances of SCMC vis a vis the affordances of ACMC and face-to-face interaction.Reviewed studies had focused most frequently on such language skills as speaking and writing and on such 21st century skills, such as communication and collaboration; the social constructivism theory was often used; Facebook, Google Docs, and Moodle were popular technologies in reviewed studies to facilitate language and 21st century skills; the following five types of learning activities were used to support learners' language learning and 21st century skills: (1) collaborative task-based language learning activities; (2) language learning activities based on online communication; (3) creative work-based language learning activities; (4) adaptive language learning activities based on learning platforms; (5) language learning activities based on multimedia learning materials; most of the studies had a sample size of 11-30, the most common study period was 3-6 months, the data collection method often used by researchers was questionnaires, the most common method to collect quantitative data was tests, and the most common method to collect qualitative data was interviews.The most frequently used tools (i.e., cameras) to create 360-degree videos were GoPro and Samsung, scholars also used Insta 360, LG 360 CA, Ricoh Theta V, and 360fly 4k cameras in the reviewed studies; the theories were grouped into cognitive theory, social learning theory, behavioral theory, situated learning theory, and affective learning theory; the most popular domains were medicine and healthcare, language, culture, science, and teacher education; there were twelve studies with less than thirty participants involved.Participants watched 360-degree videos; 360-degree videos were created by professionals; 360-degree videos were created by participants; 360-degree videos were obtained from other sources and 360-degree videos were obtained from unspecified sources; durations were less than 30 min, between 30 and 60 min, between 1 and 6 h (n = 9), between 1 day and 1 week (n = 2), between 1 week and 1 month, and more than 1 month; scholars used questionnaires, tests, interviews, surveys, student reflection, teacher evaluations, and peer evaluations; scholars reported about improved learning outcomes, positive attitudes toward 360-degree video, user experience, behavioral changes, and motivation.

27
Solmaz (2018) [39] What are the emerging themes and issues addressed in the previous scholarship of SNS use in L2TL settings?What are the pedagogical considerations for SNS integration into L2TL?
The value of SNSs as a general resource to create new avenues for practicing a multitude of language areas and literacies is dominantly present in the literature; SNSs were shown to create spaces for learners to be exposed to authentic input in an informal context with opportunities for authentic output; previous studies suggest that SNSs may play a role in assisting L2 learners in developing intercultural competence and socio-pragmatic skills in socio-interactive online environments; a high level of interaction in social networking spaces naturally resulted in the exploration of online communities in the L2TL context; identity performance and self-presentation are often experienced in SNSs, mostly because such virtual worlds enable learners to experiment with multiple identities more safely as they do not occur in a monolithic real world.
28 Wu (2021) [22] What are the commonly reported learning outcomes of telecollaboration projects that take place for the purpose of language teachers' professional development?What are the key themes in terms of the types of new teaching competences for language teachers to develop, new roles of project instructors, teacher perceptions of telecollaborative learning, and their preparedness for transferring the new competences to language classrooms?Scholars of the examined studies have increasingly applied telecollaboration to prepare teachers for new competences.
Researchers have conceptualized telecollaboration as experiential learning when designing tasks to boost teachers' development; a majority of scholars in the 36 studies intentionally engaged teachers in experiential learning of telecollaboration; a task design mediator takes on multiple roles, including the role of a co-designer needed to connect participating institutions and to co-design telecollaborative tasks and a curriculum in the planning stage; after participating in telecollaboration projects, teachers demonstrated a variety of changes in their attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions; many scholars of the 36 studies stressed that it is as significant to prepare teachers for such issues as to teach them how to design and implement tasks relevant to intercultural learning, technology integration, and telecollaboration integration.[60] What is the relationship between participants and technology?What is the relationship between participants and the reported main findings?What is the relationship between the instruments and main findings?What is the relationship between study types and the main findings?Does technology have an impact on intercultural learning?
(1) Moderate evidence showed a higher frequency of the technology usage in higher education or above; strong evidence revealed that technology was applied more frequently in studies with large samples than in those with small samples; (2) moderate evidence demonstrated that most of the main findings were obtained from studies related to higher education or above; (3) moderate evidence illustrated that the main finding was intercultural learning outcome, and it was frequently obtained using various measuring instruments; (4) there was moderate evidence that mixed research was prevalent in the reviewed studies, and most of the main findings were obtained through mixed research; (5) strong evidence showed that computer vision technologies had the most significant impacts on participants' intercultural learning.In addition, the following five relationships were identified: participants and technology, participants and main findings, instruments and main findings, types and main findings, and impacts of technology on intercultural learning.
30 Zak (2021) [23] What are some of the VE models discussed in the literature?What are the major learning outcomes of VE? What are the programmatic insights (trends, challenges, limitations) addressed in the literature?
VE has been most often used with the intention of language learning and developing international cultural competencies; one of the best known models of VE is COIL.The Center for COIL assists in facilitating online learning and building relationships with international partners; VE programs are noting varying learning outcomes, such as language learning, peacebuilding, and international cultural competency development.The scholarship on VE mostly consists of case studies sharing analysis of programmatic features, including planning, curricular, and pedagogical visions; several scholars offer implementation guidance, including a typology of implementation models and an evaluation process of a pedagogical intervention.
31 Zhao (2003) [45] How and in what ways is technology are effective in improving language learning?Overviews of the literature were published in 1998 and 1999, and contain 10 feature articles; uses and effectiveness of technologies in language education is categorized into four groups: access to materials, communication opportunities, feedback, and learner motivation; assessing the overall effectiveness uses a preliminary meta-analysis.

Author(s) Limitation(s)
Akiyama and Cunningham (2018) [35] First, there is a lack of TC projects that go beyond one semester and that feature participants whose proficiency is higher than intermediate; we need more research on TC projects that involve LCTLs; there is a paucity of multilingual and lingua franca projects; we cannot emphasize enough how important it is for TC researchers to report as many details as possible about their TC projects; finally, it is important to remember that this synthesis does not represent the entirety of SCMC-based TC, because of the 55 projects included in the synthesis.
2 Avgousti (2018) [43] With regard to methodological limitations, methodological triangulation is suggested; limited in including a different set of databases and journals; limited in year of publication or omitting any other inclusion and exclusion criteria to extend the scope of the study; limited in focus on a different set of keywords which might uncover a different set of empirical studies; multi focus on two aspects, such as ICC and language skill, which means that the study is not specifically concerned with ICC skills.

Author(s) Limitation(s)
Barbosa and Ferreira-Lopes (2021) [14] Although Europe and Asia also have significant presence, there is much space to improve co-authorship in the near future.From the intercultural perspective, telecollaborative exchanges could also be much more enriched with an increased involvement of other cultural clusters; the different methodologies to identify keyword clusters and trend topics can be used in future studies.
4 Barrot (2021) [54] The study did not examine the generalizability of the findings of the selected studies; the analysis was delimited to papers retrieved from the Scopus database within the three subject categories; the bibliometric nature of this study restricted me from differentiating between studies on formal and informal language learning contexts.

5
Çiftçi and Savas (2018) [8] The main limitations of this synthesis paper concern potential future meta-syntheses or meta-analyses, and the study at hand had a limited scope and time.
Çiftçi (2016) [31] Small number of studies; limited criteria of selection only focused on an empirical study.

7
Gallagher and Savage (2013) [36] Small number of studies reviewed; limited scope of themes discussed.Small number papers reviewed that should improve in the future.9 Istifci and Ucar (2021) [37] The scope of this study is relatively limited.

Ivenz and Klimova (2022) [10]
The main limitation of this review study is that only open access articles were included.Jiang et al. (2021) [11] This article has illustrated the impetus for teachers' ICC learning and training to occupy a prominent niche in the school agenda; while the availability and quantity of such projects is lacking, this is but one area to be considered.Kolm et al. (2022) [33] First, reported results were heterogeneous and synthesis is possible only to a limited degree; second, we limited studies to the English and German language and, therefore, might have missed relevant findings of studies in other languages.

Lewis and O'Dowd (2016) [34]
A small number of authors have produced evidence that telecollaborative exchanges can foster the development of learner autonomy and that immersive environments may offer particularly favorable conditions.Manca and Ranierit (2016) [38] The review was performed on several databases and within a few educational-related journals; although the latter would be an optimal integrative method to take stock of this trend of research, the available studies in each of the three domains (formal use in informal learning settings, informal use in formal learning settings, and use in informal learning settings) are too heterogeneous to justify a quantitative meta-analysis.O'Dowd (2016) [55] Lack of space has meant it was impossible to look at the many different research methods which were reported at the Dublin conference.Parmaxi and Zaphiris (2016) [53] The decision to limit the corpus to four journals meant that some manuscripts that relate to CMC in language learning and teaching were not included; the results are limited to this particular corpus; however, the results may also reflect both present and future trends in the field.Parmaxi (2020) [6] Small number of studies reviewed.Peng et al. (2020) [44] On the one hand, in the process of data collection, the keywords we chose were limited which could not cover all the other different terms, like cross-cultural competence, global competence, and cross-cultural adaptation, etc. Piri and Riyahi (2018) [30] Limited databases; limited number of studies.Shadiev and Dang (2022) [18] This study only used the searched papers in the Web of Science database; this study only includes eight fields, which is too few for all disciplines.In the future, scholars may address these issues.Shadiev and Liu (2022) [63] Unspecified Shadiev and Sintawati (2020) [50] Only twenty-five research articles were reviewed, and some important studies on intercultural learning supported by technology were omitted.

Author(s)
Limitation(s) 23 Shadiev and Wang (2022) [61] Articles reviewed in this study were sourced from PRIMO and Web of Science databases, and some conference papers, books and dissertations were excluded.24 Shadiev and Yu (2022) [64] The search for research articles was limited to SSCI journals only; another limitation is that 18 reviewed studies included no information related to theoretical foundations.Specific databased and inclusion/exclusion criteria used in our study were limited; we only focused on exploring such aspects as tools, theory, methodologies, and results; performing a meta-analysis in order to statistically test the effectiveness of applications of 360-degree videos on learning outcomes is another promising research direction.
27 Solmaz (2018) [39] 28 Wu (2021) [22] Small number of studies reviewed; limited scope of themes discussed.Conference papers, book reviews, etc., were excluded from this study; there were not quality assessment tools for evaluating educational research articles; the researchers did not use a meta-analysis because there were few intercultural learning studies.30 Zak (2021) [23] Lack of methodological diversity in the published studies-most are qualitative, and many use the case study methodology; insignificant empirical exploration of the faculty/facilitator experience in planning and executing VE programs.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. The content analysis involved in the review studies.

Table 1 .
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria.
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.