Articles marked with an asterisk (*) were analyzed in this synthesis study.
*Angelova M. and Zhao Y. (2016 ) Using an online collaborative project between American and Chinese students to develop ESL teaching skills, cross-cultural awareness and language skills. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(1): 167–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.907320
*Antoniadou V. (2011) Using activity theory to understand the contradictions in an online transatlantic collaboration between student-teachers of English as a foreign language. ReCALL, 23(3): 233–251. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344011000164
Baran E. (2014) A review of research on mobile learning in teacher education. Educational Technology & Society, 17(4): 17–32.
Bennett M. J. (1993) Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In Paige, R. M. (ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (2nd ed.). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press, 21–71.
*Bueno-Alastuey M. C. and Kleban M. (2016 ) Matching linguistic and pedagogical objectives in a telecollaboration project: A case study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(1): 148–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.904360
Byram M. (1997) Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
*Canto S., Jauregi K. and van den Bergh H. (2013) Integrating cross-cultural interaction through video-communication and virtual worlds in foreign language teaching programs: Is there an added value?
ReCALL, 25(1): 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344012000274
Carney N. (2006) Telecollaboration for intercultural learning: An overview of projects involving Japan. The JALT CALL Journal, 2(1): 37–52.
*Chen J. J. and Yang S. C. (2016 ) Promoting cross-cultural understanding and language use in research-oriented Internet-mediated intercultural exchange. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(2): 262–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.937441
Chen W.-C., Shih Y.-C. D. and Liu G.-Z. (2015 ) Task design and its induced learning effects in a cross-institutional blog-mediated telecollaboration. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(4): 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2013.818557
Çiftçi E. Y. (2016) A review of research on intercultural learning through computer-based digital technologies. Educational Technology & Society, 19(2): 313–327.
Cooper H. and Hedges L. V. (2009) Research synthesis as a scientific process. In Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V. and Valentine, J. C. (eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 3–16.
*Dooly M. (2011) Divergent perceptions of telecollaborative language learning tasks: Task-as-workplan vs. task-as-process. Language Learning & Technology, 15(2): 69–91.
Fuchs C., Hauck M. and Müller-Hartmann A. (2012) Promoting learner autonomy through multiliteracy skills development in cross-institutional exchanges. Language Learning & Technology, 16(3): 82–102.
Furstenberg G., Levet S., English K. and Maillet K. (2001) Giving a virtual voice to the silent language of culture: The Cultura project. Language Learning & Technology, 5(1): 55–102.
Galvan J. L. (2013) Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (5th ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrczak.
Godwin-Jones R. (2013) Integrating intercultural competence into language learning through technology. Language Learning & Technology, 17(2): 1–11.
Hammersley M. (2001) On ‘systematic’ reviews of research literatures: A ‘narrative’ response to Evans & Benefield. British Educational Research Journal, 27(5): 543–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920120095726
*Helm F., Guth S. and Farrah M. (2012) Promoting dialogue or hegemonic practice? Power issues in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 16(2): 103–127.
Holliday A. (2011) Intercultural communication and ideology. London: Sage.
Lewis T. and O’Dowd R. (2016) Online intercultural exchange and foreign language learning: A systematic review. In O’Dowd, R. and Lewis, T. (eds.), Online intercultural exchange: Policy, pedagogy, practice. New York: Routledge, 21–68.
*Liaw M.-L. and Bunn-Le Master S. (2010) Understanding telecollaboration through an analysis of intercultural discourse. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(1): 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220903467301
Negueruela-Azarola E. (2011) Changing reasons as reasoning changes: A narrative interview on second language classroom motivation, telecollaboration, and the learning of foreign languages. Language Awareness, 20(3): 183–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2011.570348
Norton B. (2000) Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change. Harlow, England: Longman/Pearson Education.
O’Dowd R. (2015b) Supporting in-service language educators in learning to telecollaborate. Language Learning & Technology, 19(1): 63–82.
O’Dowd R. and Ritter M. (2006) Understanding and working with ‘failed communication’ in telecollaborative exchanges. CALICO Journal, 23(3): 623–642.
*Pérez Cañado M. L. (2010) Using virtual learning environments and computer-mediated communication to enhance the lexical competence of pre-service English teachers: A quantitative and qualitative study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(2): 129–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221003666222
Suri H. and Clarke D. (2009) Advancements in research synthesis methods: From a methodologically inclusive perspective. Review of Educational Research, 79(1): 395–430. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308326349
Thornberg R. and Charmaz K. (2014) Grounded theory and theoretical coding. In Flick, U. (ed.), The Sage handbook of qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 153–169. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282243.n11
Thorne S. L. (2003) Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2): 38–67.
*Vinagre M. and Muñoz B. (2011) Computer-mediated corrective feedback and language accuracy in telecollaborative exchanges. Language Learning & Technology, 15(1): 72–103.
*Ware P. and Kessler G. (2016 ) Telecollaboration in the secondary language classroom: Case study of adolescent interaction and pedagogical integration. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(3): 427–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.961481