261 Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching Department of English Studies, Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts, Adam Mickiewicz University, Kalisz SSLLT 12 (2). 2022. 261-301 http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2022.12.2.5 http://pressto.amu.edu.pl/index.php/ssllt Learner variables in the development of intercultural competence: A synthesis of home and study abroad research Zia Tajeddin Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0430-6408 tajeddinz@modares.ac.ir Neda Khanlarzadeh Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8369-9467 nedakhanlarzadeh@yahoo.ca Hessameddin Ghanbar Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8895-3791 hessam.ghanbar@gmail.com Abstract To provide insights into a wide array of individual learner variables implicated in intercultural education in home and study abroad contexts, this study sys- tematically reviewed the effects of such variables on the development of in- tercultural competence. The corpus consisted of 56 journal articles published over the past two decades (2000-2020). The purpose of this study was to ex- plore: (a) learner variables that were described in research on intercultural competence, including, inter alia, their age, gender, first language (L1) back- ground, proficiency level, and attitudinal orientations; (b) settings in which learners’ intercultural development was studied, including both home con- texts and study abroad contexts; and (c) effects of learner variables on the development of their intercultural competence. The results of this synthesis Zia Tajeddin, Neda Khanlarzadeh, Hessameddin Ghanbar 262 indicate that a growing number of studies have started to document intercul- tural instruction in both home and study abroad contexts. They show how learner variables were considered in conducting these studies and how varia- tion in these variables impacted the effectiveness of instruction that targeted intercultural competence. The findings can considerably broaden our under- standing of both opportunities and constraints in intercultural education in terms of learner variables and in particular variables that make the most con- tribution to intercultural development in home and study abroad contexts. Keywords: learner variables; intercultural competence; home context; study abroad context 1. Introduction With the rise of globalization, intercultural competence has been brought to the center of language education in the past two decades (Baker & Fang, 2021; Byram, 2008, 2019; Wagner & Byram, 2017). The intercultural competence of language learners can be developed either through instruction in classrooms in the home context or during exposure when participating in study abroad. While study abroad affords great opportunities for intercultural development (e.g., Bloom & Miranda, 2015; Czerwionka et al., 2015; Schartner, 2016), the majority of language learners studying at home receive classroom-based instruction with less opportunity for intercultural interaction unless there are initiatives for this opportunity in the curriculum (e.g., Álvarez Valencia & Fernández Benavides, 2019; Özdemir, 2017; Zhang, 2020). To expedite learners’ intercultural develop- ment, teachers build on a range of instruction methods, including explicit and implicit instruction, awareness-raising activities, email communication, online (a)synchronous intercultural exchanges, and intercultural social networks. How- ever, the effectiveness of these methods largely bears on learner variables such as age, gender, and language proficiency. The purpose of this synthesis research was to explore learner variables that are implicated in the studies on the devel- opment of intercultural competence in home and study abroad contexts. 2. Intercultural language teaching One of the critical aspects of language teaching that permeates second language acquisition (SLA) studies and has attracted the attention of numerous scholars is the concept of culture (Byram et al., 2013; Guilherme, 2000; Tolosa et al., 2018). During the past few decades, as an upshot of globalization, a number of scholars have introduced the concept of intercultural communicative competence Learner variables in the development of intercultural competence: A synthesis of home and study . . . 263 (ICC), which is beyond simple cultural knowledge and considers the dynamicity of cultures, intercultural interactions, and cultural identities (see Ho, 2009; Kubota, 1998; Wagner & Byram, 2017). The concept of ICC emerged and developed dur- ing the 1980s and 1990s, when a number of researchers attempted to demon- strate the underlying constructs of ICC by suggesting different models to present a clear definition of it (e.g., Abe & Wiseman, 1983; Byram, 1997; Gudykunst & Hammer, 1984; Howard-Hamilton et al., 1998; Koester & Olebe, 1988; Martin & Hammer, 1989). However, early studies in this area referred to ICC using differ- ent terminologies, including multicultural competence, transcultural compe- tence, cross-cultural adaptation, cross-cultural effectiveness, cross-cultural ad- justment, and intercultural sensitivity, which implied the same concept to some extent (see Biell & Doff, 2014; Deardorff, 2004; Kramsch, 2011). The proposed concept of ICC promotes the notion of intercultural speaker as an ideal goal in language and culture teaching, as opposed to the entrenched ideology of native-speakerism (Byram & Wagner, 2018). Proponents of ICC have challenged the essentialist views that highlight cultural differences and focus on biases and stereotypes (see Holliday, 2011). According to the tenets of the ICC approach, learners should attain the capability to be moderators between various languages and cultures (Byram, 1997; Byram & Wagner, 2018; Kohler, 2020; Zar- ate et al., 2004). Therefore, while most approaches to teaching culture focus on the straightforward delivery of cultural information to second and foreign lan- guage (L2) learners, intercultural approaches emphasize the importance of the “meaning-making” process as well as intercultural identity formation that learn- ers go through during active engagement with language and cultures (see Kohler, 2020; Kramsch & Nolden, 1994). Unlike mainstream communicative competence models that idealize the target society’s cultural values and encourage L2 learners to comply with native speaker norms (Alptekin, 1993, 2002), proponents of ICC take learners’ first language (L1) values into account as well. Moreover, learners are considered as both analyzers and participants throughout the interaction; they need to stay in conversation and resort to their linguistic and cultural reper- toires in order to interpret their conversers’ messages and express their own (Lid- dicoat & Scarino, 2010). Inspired by the concept of intercultural communicative competence proposed by Byram (1997), intercultural L2 teaching and learning is the recent and leading paradigm of culture practice in SLA (Byram, 2019). Thus, in short, ICC refers to individuals’ ability to “see and manage relationships between themselves and their own cultural beliefs, behaviors and meanings, as expressed in a foreign language, and those of their interlocutors, expressed in the same lan- guage – or even a combination of languages” (Byram, 1997, p. 12). To date, several models of intercultural language acquisition, teaching, learn- ing, and assessment have been suggested by different scholars, which provide a Zia Tajeddin, Neda Khanlarzadeh, Hessameddin Ghanbar 264 foundation for the currently practiced ICC teaching methods (e.g., Bennett et al., 1999; Byram, 2008; Deardorff, 2006; Risager, 2007; Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998). Among the proposed models of intercultural competence, Byram and Zarate’s (1994) Savoirs model stands out. The model is fundamental to the current un- derstanding of the concept of ICC in general and has informed subsequent inter- cultural teaching methods and related research. It is composed of four main phases, namely savoir, savoir être, savoir comprendre, savoir apprendre, and an additional phase called savoir s’engager, which was introduced later by Byram (cf. Byram, 1997; Byram & Zarate, 1994). These categories are related to the main aspects of ICC: attitudes, knowledge, skills of interpreting and relating, skills of discovery and interaction, and critical cultural awareness. Another model of in- tercultural pedagogy, put forward by Scarino and Liddicoat (2009), accounts for learners’ ICC development through a four-stage circular process of noticing, com- paring, reflecting, and interacting. According to this model, first, learners notice some new L2 cultural norms. Subsequently, they discern similarities and differ- ences between the new culture and their L1 culture by making comparisons. Consequently, thinking upon the two cultures leads to learners’ reflection as an essential component of ICC. Ultimately, through the last stage, drawing on their intercultural repertoire, individuals engage in the meaning-making process and learn to express themselves. Since ICC cannot typically be achieved spontaneously and it necessitates constant engagement and feedback (McCloskey, 2012), a number of L2 teaching researchers have proposed more tangible, practical techniques which can guide teachers in implementing intercultural language teaching (e.g., Busse & Krause, 2015; East, 2012; Ennis & Riley, 2018; Kohler, 2020; Lázár, 2015; Reid, 2015; Rodríguez & Puyal, 2012; Tecedor & Vasseur, 2020). Such activities and teaching techniques can be implemented in different settings and take on different forms such as individual work, pair work, and whole-class activities (Corbett, 2003). Piątkowska (2015) cat- egorized the different methods of enhancing learners’ ICC into three groups: for- mal instruction, which normally occurs in the classroom context; experiential learn- ing tasks, which refer to learners’ experiences in immersion or study abroad pro- grams; and the use of new technologies, which can be performed by practicing ICC through various technological instruments and platforms, including online forums, concordancers, telecollaboration, and video conferencing. Examples of studies akin to these categories are briefly described below. East (2012) discussed the potential of task-based language teaching (TBLT) in developing L2 learners’ ICC as well as their linguistic competence. He believed that with the aid of appropriate teacher education, teachers can enhance their students’ ICC via TBLT and communicative competence-based language teach- ing methods. Also, inspired by Hughes’ (1986) work, Reid (2015) proposed a set Learner variables in the development of intercultural competence: A synthesis of home and study . . . 265 of teaching techniques that can be implemented in L2 classes with the aim of boost- ing learners’ ICC, such as cultural assimilation, comparison method, drama, refor- mulation, noticing, role plays, cultural capsule, research, songs, games, portfolio, prediction, cultural island, field trip, and treasure hunt. In a similar vein, Zhang and Zhou (2019) identified overseas immersion as one of the most common ap- proaches for boosting individuals’ ICC. Song (2020) studied the intercultural de- velopment of 33 American college students who wished to learn Korean during the course of six weeks in Korea. The analysis of participants’ data from an inter- cultural competence questionnaire, role play oral assessment, reflective writings, and interviews proved that they made significant improvement in the cognitive, affective, and behavioral aspects of ICC. Neff and Apple (2020) investigated the effects of two types of study abroad programs, long-term and short-term, on learners’ intercultural communication, L2 confidence, and sense of L2 self. After the analysis of pre- and post-study abroad survey data, the results indicated that the students who had spent more time abroad developed higher levels of ICC. Several researchers have also highlighted the importance of computer or web- based approaches in fostering learners’ ICC (e.g., Furstenberg, 2010; Godwin-Jones, 2013, 2019; Lewis & O’Dowd, 2016; O’Dowd, 2012; Özdemir, 2017; Schenker, 2012). O’Dowd and Dooly (2020) looked into the types of online intercultural exchange between students. They believe that there are two main overarching models. The first model, which is more common, refers to class-to-class exchanges or telecollab- oration, where two teachers work together to design tasks or projects, integrated into the class syllabus. Through the second model, called virtual exchange, students from different cultures contact one another via video-conferencing to engage in in- tercultural dialogue under the supervision of a teacher or trained facilitator. As an example of web-based approaches to ICC development, Van der Kroon et al. (2015) found in their analysis of 16 students’ task-based telecollaboration sessions for achieving intercultural understanding that such programs are highly effective as they provide numerous opportunities in this respect. In general, as argued by Piątkowska (2015), teaching practices which focus on experiential learning, whether by means of technological equipment or not, are likely to be more effective than methods that center on formal instructions. To date, most of the studies targeting ICC have focused on developing ICC teaching frameworks and models but there are no unified methods and guide- lines for their classroom implementation (Baker, 2015; Byram & Feng, 2004). This might be due to a lack of consensus upon the conception of ICC, inconsistent teaching methods for implementation, ineffective support from policy-makers, and practitioners’ insufficient knowledge of intercultural language teaching (see Gu, 2015; Kim & Ebesu Hubbard, 2007; Sercu, 2006; Young & Sachdev, 2011). However, a few researchers have embarked on conducting meta-analytic and systematic Zia Tajeddin, Neda Khanlarzadeh, Hessameddin Ghanbar 266 reviews of ICC pedagogy and have have classified the current methodologies and attempts regarding this pedagogy. Bradford et al. (1998), in their meta-analysis of 16 studies, explored the association between studies on intercultural com- munication effectiveness and ICC, and attempted to find the relationship between knowledge-based and skill-based attributes in predicting ICC. Their analysis re- vealed the effects of these attributes and a strong association between ICC studies and intercultural communication effectiveness. In this analysis, measurement of ICC and intercultural communication effectiveness was demonstrated to be equivalent. Avgousti (2018) looked at the effectiveness of online intercultural exchanges in developing learners’ ICC by reviewing 54 studies exploring the im- pact of Web 2.0 tools published from 2004 to 2015 in this respect. Zhang and Zhou (2019) undertook a review of 31 previous studies on intercultural inter- ventions and examined the relative effectiveness of such interventions. In their review, immersion and pedagogical intervention were identified as the two ma- jor types of instruction. They categorized the conducted interventions as cul- ture-based teaching materials, classroom activities, teaching strategies, and in- tegrated intercultural programs. It was found that overseas immersion contrib- utes to ICC development to a greater extent than pedagogical intervention does. Finally, Bagwe and Haskollar (2020) conducted a systematic review of variables impacting intercultural competence. They found that the impact of the intercul- tural training program was significant across the board; however, it was hard to predict the impact of demographic factors such as age, gender, education, lin- guistic ability, geography, religion, and ethnicity/race. 3. Learner variables Learner variables have long been neglected in the history of L2 acquisition be- cause the main focus of L2 practitioners and teaching methods was on teachers, while learners were assumed to be passive recipients of the instruction. It was not until the 1970s that learners’ roles and individual learner variables were in- creasingly recognized as decisive factors in L2 pedagogy. Consequently, L2 re- searchers began investigating the relative contribution of these variables to learn- ers’ L2 achievement. The conducted studies have discussed the effects of various learner variables on general L2 achievement of learners, such as their attitudes and motivation (e.g., Csizér, 2017; Moskovsky et al., 2016), beliefs about language learning (Alhamami, 2018; Aragão, 2011), age (e.g., Artieda et al., 2020; Mari- nova-Todd et al., 2000), and gender (e.g., Bećirović, 2017; Mori & Gobel, 2006; Norton & Pavlenko, 2004). Meanwhile, several studies have focused on the effect of each of these variables on specific aspects of L2, such as, for example, different skills and subskills (e.g., Amiryousefi, 2018; Ke & Chan, 2017; Lee & Pulido, 2017; Learner variables in the development of intercultural competence: A synthesis of home and study . . . 267 Ruiz-Funes, 2015; Vandergrift & Baker, 2015) and specific teaching methods or approaches (e.g., Namaziandost & Çakmak, 2020; Baker-Smemoe et al., 2014). Some others also have sought to shed light on the relationship between different learner variables or their confounding effects on some components of L2 (e.g., Calafato & Tang, 2019; Kormos & Csizér, 2008; Yashima et al., 2017). However, so far, the findings have not been conclusive, as they have not reached the same re- sults. For example, Marinova-Todd et al. (2000), in their analysis of previous inves- tigations on the effect of age, illustrated how different studies on L2 learners’ age supported or refuted the critical period hypothesis, and discussed the interplay between individuals’ age and a variety of social, psychological as well as educa- tional factors that can affect L2 proficiency. As for ICC, which is contended to be part of 21st-century individuals’ language competence, several learner variables are assumed to be critical (e.g., see Council of Europe, 2008; National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project, 2006). For example, Wagner et al. (2017) edited a volume on how this competence can be prac- ticed across different age groups. Since ICC is inextricably intertwined with different cultures and individuals’ cultural experiences, other learner-related factors (e.g., learners’ social background, race, L1, overseas experience, prior knowledge, motiva- tion, and attitudes) in conjunction with common learner variables (e.g., age, gender, and proficiency level) can play substantial roles in ICC development. In fact, the recip- rocal relationships between learners’ motivation, intercultural awareness and atti- tudes were highlighted by Byram (2008). Hismanoglu (2011) reported on the im- portance of learners’ previous cultural and overseas experience in developing their ICC, which was echoed in other studies as well (e.g., Medina-López-Portillo, 2004; Root & Ngampornchai, 2013). Mirzaei and Forouzandeh (2013) found a significant relationship between individuals’ L2 learning motivation and ICC. Oz (2015) found a significant positive relationship between the ideal L2 self and ICC of Turkish EFL learn- ers. Moreover, Ghasemi et al. (2020) proposed an ICC model that incorporates a rela- tionship between learners’ international posture, ideal L2 self, L2 self-confidence, and metacognitive strategies, and suggested these factors as contributing to individuals’ intercultural competence. They highlighted that individuals who would like to engage in international affairs and take on international vocations are more likely to interact with people of other cultures and consequently possess a higher level of ICC. Despite this body of research and in conjunction with other studies on learner variables, the results of research on the role of these variables in ICC are rather contradictory. For example, regarding learners’ gender, some of them pri- oritized females (e.g., Berg, 2009; Clark & Trafford, 1995; Sung & Padilla, 1998), a number of them provided evidence for male learners’ better performance (e.g., Kim & Goldstein, 2005; Medina-López-Portillo, 2004; Pan, 2007), and still others reported no relationship whatsoever between these two variables (Mirzaei Zia Tajeddin, Neda Khanlarzadeh, Hessameddin Ghanbar 268 & Forouzandeh, 2013; Morales, 2017; Patricia, 2005; Tosuncuoglu, 2019). More- over, the relationship between learners’ age and their ICC remained rather unno- ticed. Whereas some studies reported age as a decisive factor in learners’ ICC (e.g., Medina-López-Portillo, 2004), others did not report any significant effects in this respect (e.g., Busse & Krause, 2016). These controversies suggest the need for a systematic review in order to explore the possible effects of learner variables on ICC in different contexts. To bridge this gap, this synthesis research aimed to offer an in-depth review of the related studies and to highlight the existing gaps in the literature or areas which need further empirical investigation. Thus, the fol- lowing research questions were addressed in this study: 1. What types of intervention (i.e., instruction or no instruction) are de- scribed in studies on L2 learners’ ICC development? What are the con- texts of these studies (study abroad or home contexts)? 2. What learner variables are described in studies on L2 learners’ ICC de- velopment? 3. What learner variables are examined for their effects in studies on L2 learners’ ICC development? 4. Method 4.1. Literature search and inclusion criteria The aim of the present study was to synthesize current studies on ICC develop- ment in relation to learner variables. The target studies either included instruc- tion at home and study abroad, as the main interventions for developing learn- ers’ ICC (see Zhang & Zhou, 2019), or sought to measure the association be- tween learner variables and ICC level/development in non-instructional con- texts. The systematic literature search employed in the present study included two main strategies to identify the relevant literature concerning learner varia- bles in the development of ICC: conducting a search in Google Scholar and using several reliable academic databases. In order to locate the relevant studies, mul- tiple sources and databases were explored, as suggested by Brunton et al. (2012), Gough et al. (2013), and Lipsey and Wilson (2001). The process of prob- ing studies in Google Scholar, which is a well-known platform for finding re- search papers, began by searching the first 300 studies which emerged on the first 30 pages of the search engine. The studies were published between the years 2000-2020. The following terms and phrases were used to locate the rel- evant studies: intercultural communicative competence, intercultural language Learner variables in the development of intercultural competence: A synthesis of home and study . . . 269 teaching, intercultural competence teaching, intercultural instruction, intercul- tural communicative competence and learner variables, intercultural instruc- tion, intercultural competence and second language, intercultural competence and L2, L2 learners’ intercultural competence, and intercultural competence and study abroad. However, only the papers which were published by some of the leading international publishers in the field of applied linguistics, such as Taylor and Francis, Elsevier, Sage, Springer, Wiley, Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, De Gruyter, JSTOR, and Frontiers, were selected. Those papers were also limited to research studies; accordingly, book chapters, review papers, meta-analyses, conference papers, short papers (less than 6000 words), reports, and dissertations were not included. Next, the same terms were directly searched in the Language and Linguistics section of several database websites, such as Sci- ence Direct, Taylor and Francis, and Sage, in case the relevant studies were left out in Google Scholar search. A total of 115 papers were examined and the studies that focused on teachers’ ICC rather than L2 learners’ were excluded. Moreover, only the papers that were published in applied linguistics and L2 studies journals and focused on participants who were language learners or L2 speakers were tar- geted; that is, the studies that sought to analyze the ICC level of individuals who were not L2 learners or L2 was not part of their learning programs were elimi- nated. This iterative process of literature search, which lasted from June 2020 to September 2020, led to the selection of 56 papers for final analysis. 4.2. Data analysis The purpose of the present systematic review was to provide a clear picture of the studies conducted on ICC instruction, the context of ICC development, learner variables described in these studies, and the effects of learner variables on their ICC levels. To this end, several factors or themes concerning the methodology and results of the studies were subject to analysis. These factors included the context of the studies, the employed treatment or instruction, the number of participants and their L1 and L2, the analyzed learner variables (e.g., gender, age, and language proficiency), and, more importantly, the effects of these variables on individuals’ ICC. Subsequently, each of these themes was further divided into several sub- themes and coded based on previous related studies and systematic reviews. The analyzed variables and the coding scheme are presented below: · Context of the study: This variable was sub-coded into home study and study abroad contexts. A home study referred to research that investi- gated individuals’ ICC or ICC development in their home country, whereas a study abroad focused on individuals whose ICC or ICC devel- opment was analyzed when they resided in the L2 context. Zia Tajeddin, Neda Khanlarzadeh, Hessameddin Ghanbar 270 · Instruction: The reviewed research was either instructional or non-in- structional. The former concerned studies that included ICC interven- tions, and the latter referred to studies that did not aim at improving participants’ ICC. · Participants’ gender: Participants’ gender was coded as male, female, both, and not mentioned. · Participants’ age: Individuals’ age was coded into four groups: not men- tioned, below 18, 18 and above, and both. · Micro-context: This variable dealt with the educational context where the data were collected. It was coded into not mentioned, universities and colleges, schools, language institutes, and different contexts. · L1 background: The participants’ first language was coded. The assigned codes were chosen based on the frequency of the languages. This category included English, Chinese, German, others, different languages, and not reported. · L2 background: This theme referred to the codes which focused on the participants’ target language. In general, participants’ L2s were divided into eight codes: English, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, Italian, German, not reported, and different languages. · Language proficiency: The reviewed studies included participants at differ- ent levels of language proficiency. In this systematic review, this was coded into elementary, intermediate, advanced, mixed (the studies in which par- ticipants were at different proficiency levels), and not mentioned. · The effects of learner variables: Of the 56 studies, 15 considered the ef- fects of learner variables on ICC or ICC development. These learner varia- bles included language proficiency; age; gender; previous contact with L2 culture; attitudinal, affective, or behavioral factors; ethnicity, race, or na- tionality; and other variables such as parents’ educational background or learners’ location. In addition, these codes were further divided into the two categories of effective and not effective based on their effectiveness. It should be noted that only the information which was explicitly stated in the re- viewed research was included in our analysis. The frequency of each code and sub- code was calculated and illustrated in tables using the SPSS software program. Fur- thermore, in order to analyze the intersections between some variables, such as, for instance, participants’ age and gender, the crosstabs of the variables were calculated. 5. Results In this part, we present the analysis of our three themes: (a) context and instruc- tion, (b) learner variables, and (c) effects of learner variables across contexts. Learner variables in the development of intercultural competence: A synthesis of home and study . . . 271 For each theme, we first present the frequency of studies related to the sub- themes constituting each theme and then, whenever necessary, some examples of studies are cited from our corpus. 5.1. Theme 1: Context and instruction The first theme we investigated was the context of the studies (i.e., whether a study was conducted in a study abroad or home context) and the type of in- struction. The number of studies across contexts and instruction types is pre- sented in Table 1 and Table 2. Table 1 Number of studies across contexts and instruction types Type of instruction Total Instruction No instruction Context Home 27 3 30 Study abroad 8 18 26 Total 35 21 56 Table 2 Types of instruction and contexts of the studies Subthemes Studies Study abroad Alred & Byram (2002); Berg (2009); Bloom & Miranda (2015); Cubillos & Ilvento (2018); Czerwionka et al. (2015); Elola & Oskoz (2008); Engle & Engle (2004); Heinzmann et al. (2015); Hismanoglu (2011); Holmes (2006); Holmes et al. (2016); Houghton (2014); Jackson (2011, 2017); Lee (2011, 2012); Lenkai- tis et al. (2019); Martinsen (2011); Medina-López-Portillo (2004); Palmer (2013); Root & Ngampornchai (2013); Sample (2013); Scally (2015); Schartner (2016); Shiri (2015); Watson & Wolfel (2015) Home study Acheson et al. (2015); Álvarez Valencia & Fernández Benavides (2019); Busse & Krause (2015, 2016); Chen & Yang (2016); Escudero (2013); Helm (2009); Ishii (2009); Kusumaningputri & Widodo (2018); Lee & Markey (2014); Liaw (2006); Mirzaei & Forouzandeh (2013); O’Dowd (2000, 2003); Özdemir (2017); Peng & Wu (2016); Rodríguez & Puyal (2012); Rothwell (2011); Schenker (2012); Su (2011a, 2011b); Tirnaz & Haddad Narafshan (2020); Tran & Duong (2018); Truong & Tran (2014); Tudini (2007); Wang & Kulich (2015); Wang et al. (2013); Yildiz (2009); Yu & Van Maele (2018); Zhang (2020) Instruction Acheson et al. (2015); Álvarez Valencia & Fernández Benavides (2019); Busse & Krause (2015, 2016); Chen & Yang (2016); Elola & Oskoz (2008); Escudero (2013); Helm (2009); Hismanoglu (2011); Holmes et al. (2016); Houghton (2014); Ishii (2009); Kusumaningputri & Widodo (2018); Lee (2011, 2012); Lee & Markey (2014); Lenkaitis et al. (2019); Lee (2011); Liaw (2006); O’Dowd (2000, 2003); Özdemir (2017); Rodríguez & Puyal (2012); Rothwell (2011); Sample (2013); Schenker (2012); Su (2011a, 2011b); Tirnaz & Haddad Narafshan (2020); Tran & Duong (2018); Truong & Tran (2014); Wang & Kulich (2015); Wang et al. (2013); Yildiz (2009); Yu & Van Maele (2018); Zhang (2020) No instruction Alred & Byram (2002); Berg (2009); Bloom & Miranda (2015); Cubillos & Ilvento (2018); Czer- wionka et al. (2015); Engle & Engle (2004); Heinzmann et al. (2015); Holmes (2006); Jackson (2011, 2017); Martinsen (2011); Medina-López-Portillo (2004); Mirzaei & Forouzandeh (2013); Palmer (2013); Peng & Wu (2016); Root & Ngampornchai (2013); Scally (2015); Schartner (2016); Shiri (2015); Tudini (2007); Watson & Wolfel (2015) First, it was revealed that almost half of the studies (N = 26) were con- ducted in a study abroad context (e.g., Alred & Byram, 2002; Cubillos & Ilvento, Zia Tajeddin, Neda Khanlarzadeh, Hessameddin Ghanbar 272 2018; Lee, 2012) and the other 30 studies were undertaken in the home context (e.g., O’Dowd, 2003; Truong & Tran, 2014; Yu & Van Maele, 2018), suggesting a balanced distribution. As regards teaching methods (see Table 1 and Table 2), it was found that ICC instruction through classroom-based methods (instruction category) was the most prominent method in our corpus (N = 35) (e.g., Elola & Oskoz, 2008; Hismanoglu, 2011; Zhang, 2020) and it was the most prominent category in the home context (N = 27) rather than in the study abroad (N = 8). However, some other studies (N = 21) utilized no teacher instruction and hence they were non-instructional (e.g., Jackson, 2017; Shiri, 2015), with the majority of these studies being implemented in the study abroad context (N = 18). To conclude, ICC development through classroom-based instruction was the most frequent method in the home context and no instruction studies were the most recurrent ones in the study abroad context. 5.2. Theme 2: Learner variables As listed before, we targeted a wide range of learner variables in our corpus of studies, including gender, age, L1, L2, and language proficiency, and not all of them were investigated with regard to their effects. Table 3 shows different breakdowns of gender and age. Table 4 presents the studies related to the learner variables of age and gender. As can be seen in Table 4, most of the stud- ies used 18 and above (the most prominent age category in the sample) partic- ipants, who were mostly comprised of both male and female learners (N = 39). Table 3 Different intersections of gender and age Age Gender Total NM Female Both Not mentioned (NM) 3 0 0 3 Below 18 2 0 1 3 18 and above 10 1 30 41 Both 1 0 8 9 Total 16 1 39 56 First, regarding gender, the results illustrated that most studies (N = 39) included both males and females as their participants (e.g., Busse & Krause, 2016; Jackson, 2017; Zhang, 2020). However, several studies (N = 16) did not provide information about the participants’ gender (e.g., Acheson et al., 2015; Álvarez Valencia & Fernández Benavides, 2019; Chen & Yang, 2016), and no study considered only male participants in its sampling. Moreover, one study used only females as participants (Lenkaitis et al., 2019). Second, the results of age analysis, as another targeted learner variable, revealed that most studies Learner variables in the development of intercultural competence: A synthesis of home and study . . . 273 (e.g., Álvarez Valencia & Fernández Benavides, 2019; Berg, 2009; Bloom & Mi- randa, 2015) tended to include adults in their investigation (N = 41), which was followed by studies (N = 9) with both adults and non-adults as their targeted participants (e.g., Heinzmann et al., 2015; Ishii 2009; Özdemir, 2017). As shown in Table 3, the studies rarely included non-adults (N = 3) as their only partici- pants (e.g., Acheson et al., 2015; Chen & Yang, 2016) or did not specify the par- ticipants’ age (e.g., Elola & Oskoz, 2008; Truong & Tran, 2014). Table 4 Studies reporting on the learner variables of gender and age Gender Male (N = 0) None Female (N = 1) Lenkaitis et al. (2019) Both (N = 39) Alred & Byram (2002); Berg (2009); Bloom & Miranda (2015); Busse & Krause (2015, 2016); Cubillos & Ilvento (2018); Czerwionka et al., (2015); Engle & Engle (2004); Heinzmann et al. (2015); Hismanoglu (2011); Holmes (2006); Holmes et al. (2016); Houghton (2014); IshII (2009); Jackson (2011, 2017); Kulich (2015); Kusumaningputri & Widodo (2018); Liaw (2006); Medina-López-Portillo (2004); Mirzaei & Forouzandeh (2013); O’Dowd (2000); Özdemir (2017); Palmer (2013); Peng & Wu (2016); Rothwell (2011); Scally (2015); Schartner (2016); Schenker (2012); Shiri (2015); Su (2011a, 2011b); Tran & Duong (2018); Tudini (2007); Wang et al. (2013); Watson & Wolfel (2015); Yildiz (2009); Yu & Van Maele (2018); Zhang (2020) Not mentioned (N = 16) Acheson et al., (2015); Álvarez Valencia & Fernández Benavides (2019); Chen & Yang (2016); Elola & Oskoz (2008); Escudero (2013); Helm (2009); Lee (2011, 2012); Lee & Markey (2014); Martinsen (2011); O’Dowd (2003); Rodríguez & Puyal (2012); Root & Ngampornchai (2013); Sample (2013); Tirnaz & Narafshan (2020); Truong & Tran (2014) Age Not reported (N = 3) Elola & Oskoz (2008); O’Dowd (2003); Truong & Tran (2014) Below 18 (N = 3) Acheson et al. (2015); Chen & Yang (2016); Rothwell (2011) 18 and above (N = 41) Alred & Byram (2002); Álvarez Valencia & Fernández Benavides (2019); Berg (2009); Bloom & Miranda (2015); Busse & Krause (2015); Cubillos & Ilvento (2018); Czerwionka et al. (2015); Engle & Engle (2004); Escudero (2013); Helm (2009); Hismanoglu (2011); Holmes (2006); Holmes et al. (2016); Houghton (2014); Jackson (2011, 2017); Kusuman- ingputri & Widodo (2018); Lee (2011, 2012); Lee & Markey (2014); Lenkaitis et al. (2019); Martinsen (2011); Medina-López-Portillo (2004); Mirzaei & Forouzandeh (2013); O’Dowd (2000); Palmer (2013); Root & Ngampornchai (2013); Scally (2015); Rodríguez & Puyal (2012); Sample (2013); Schartner (2016); Shiri (2015); Su (2011a, 2011b); Tudini (2007); Wang & Kulich (2015); Wang et al. (2013); Watson & Wolfel (2015); Yildiz (2009); Yu & Van Maele (2018); Zhang (2020); Both (N = 9) Busse & Krause (2016); Heinzmann et al. (2015); Ishii (2009); Liaw (2006); Özdemir (2017); Peng & Wu (2016); Schenker (2012); Tirnaz & Narafshan (2020); Tran & Duong (2018) According to Table 4, the great majority of the research articles reviewed focused on adult language learners (above 18 years old) in their research. To illuminate the participants’ background, Table 5 depicts the micro-contexts of the studies, that is, whether the data were collected in university, school, lan- guage institutes, or other contexts. Zia Tajeddin, Neda Khanlarzadeh, Hessameddin Ghanbar 274 Table 5 Micro-contexts of the reviewed studies Micro-context Not mentioned Palmer 2013 University and college Alred & Byram (2002); Álvarez Valencia & Fernández Benavides (2019); Berg (2009); Bloom & Miranda (2015); Cubillos & Ilvento (2018); Czerwionka et al. (2015); Elola & Oskoz (2008); Engle & Engle (2004); Escudero (2013); Helm (2009); Hismanoglu (2011); Holmes (2006); Holmes et al. (2016); Houghton (2014); Jackson (2011, 2017); Kulich (2015); Kusumaningpu- tri & Widodo (2018); Lee (2011, 2012); Lee & Markey (2014); Lenkaitis et al. (2019); Liaw (2006); Martinsen (2011); Medina–López–Portillo (2004); Mirzaei & Forouzandeh (2013); O’Dowd (2000, 2003); Özdemir (2017); Peng & Wu (2016); Rodríguez & Puyal (2012); Root & Ngampornchai (2013); Sample (2013); Scally (2015); Schartner (2016); Shiri (2015); Su (2011a, 2011b); Wang et al. (2013); Watson & Wolfel (2015); Yildiz (2009); Yu & Van Maele (2018); Zhang (2020) School Acheson et al. (2015); Chen & Yang (2016); Heinzmann et al. (2015); Ishii (2009); Rothwell (2011) Language institute Tirnaz & Narafshan (2018); Tran & Duong (2018); Truong & Tran (2014) Different Busse & Krause (2015, 2016); Schenker (2012); Tudini (2007) Evidently, 43 studies chose universities and colleges as the main contexts of their data (e.g., Alred & Byram, 2002; Álvarez Valencia & Fernández Benavides, 2019), while few of them targeted individuals learning a second language at schools (e.g., Heinzmann et al., 2015; IshII, 2009; Rothwell, 2011) and language institutes (e.g., Tirnaz & Narafshan, 2018; Tran & Duong, 2018). Consequently, the participants of ICC studies were mainly adults. To present a clearer picture of dif- ferent age groups’ participations from various micro-contexts in the reviewed studies, Table 6 illustrates different breakdowns of age and micro-context. Table 6 Intersections of age and micro-context Micro-context Age Total Not mentioned Below 18 18 and above Both Not mentioned 0 0 1 0 1 Universities and colleges 2 0 38 3 43 Schools 0 3 0 2 5 Language institutes 1 0 0 2 3 Different contexts 0 0 2 2 4 Total 3 3 41 9 56 In addition to gender, age, and micro-context (e.g., schools and universi- ties), the studies we analyzed reported on the learner variables of L1 back- ground, L2 background, and language proficiency. Table 7 outlines the list of the studies representing each of these three variables. As to the L1 and L2 of participants, Table 7 shows that a great number of studies did not specify their L1 background (N = 27) (e.g., Rodríguez & Puyal, 2012; Su, 2011a, 2011b). Among those studies that included participants’ L1, Learner variables in the development of intercultural competence: A synthesis of home and study . . . 275 English (N = 9) (e.g., Acheson et al., 2005; Lenkaitis et al., 2019) was the most recurrent finding, and a mixture of learners with different L1s (N = 8) (e.g., Schart- ner, 2016; Zhang, 2020) was the next. As regards the L2 background of learners in our corpus of studies, English was the most frequently studied L2 (N = 25) (e.g., Hismanoglu, 2011; Tirnaz & Narafshan, 2020; Tran & Duong, 2018) and Spanish ranked second in our corpus (N = 13) (e.g., Elola & Oskoz, 2012; Lee, 2012; Lenkaitis et al., 2019). Table 7 Studies reporting on the learner variables of L1 background, L2 back- ground, and language proficiency L1 back- ground Not reported (N = 27) Álvarez Valencia & Fernández Benavides (2019); Berg (2009); Bloom & Miranda (2015); Elola & Oskoz (2008); Engle & Engle (2004); Escudero (2013); Helm (2009); Kusuman- ingputri & Widodo (2018); Lee (2012); Liaw (2006); Medina-López-Portillo (2004); Mir- zaei & Forouzandeh (2013); Özdemir (2017); Palmer (2013); Peng & Wu (2016); Rodríguez & Puyal (2012); Root & Ngampornchai (2013); Sample (2013); Scally (2015); Schenker (2012); Shiri (2015); Su (2011a, 2011b); Tran & Duong (2018); Truong & Tran (2014); Watson & Wolfel (2015); Yildiz (2009) English (N = 9) Acheson et al. (2015); Alred & Byram (2002); Cubillos & Ilvento (2018); Czerwionka et al. (2015); Lenkaitis et al. (2019); Martinsen (2011); Rothwell (2011); Tudini (2007); Wang et al. (2013) Chinese (N = 6) Chen & Yang (2016); Holmes (2006); Jackson (2011, 2017); Wang & Kulich (2015); Yu & Van Maele (2018) German (N = 2) Busse & Krause (2015, 2016) Different languages (N = 8) Heinzmann et al. (2015); Holmes et al. (2016); Houghton (2014); Lee (2011); Lee & Markey (2014); O’Dowd (2000); Schartner (2016); Zhang (2020) Other languages (N = 4) Hismanoglu (2011); Ishii (2009); O’Dowd (2003); Tirnaz & Narafshan (2020) L2 back- ground Not reported (N = 4) Jackson (2017); Root & Ngampornchai (2013); Sample (2013); Schartner (2016) English (N = 25) Busse & Krause (2015, 2016); Álvarez Valencia & Fernández Benavides (2019); Chen & Yang (2016); Engle & Engle (2004); Escudero (2013); Hismanoglu (2011); Holmes (2006); Houghton (2014); Ishii (2009); Jackson (2011); Kusumaningputri & Widodo (2018); Liaw (2006); Mirzaei & Forouzandeh (2013); Özdemir (2017); Peng & Wu (2016); Rodríguez & Puyal (2012); Su (2011a, 201b1), Tirnaz & Narafshan (2020); Tran & Duong (2018); Tru- ong & Tran (2014); Wang & Kulich (2015); Yildiz (2009); Yu & Van Maele (2018) Spanish (N = 13) Acheson et al. (2015); Alred & Byram (2002); Bloom & Miranda (2015); Cubillos & Ilvento (2018); Czerwionka et al. (2015); Elola & Oskoz (2008); Helm (2009); Lee (2011, 2012); Lenkaitis et al. (2019); Martinsen (2011); Medina-López-Portillo (2004); Scally (2015) Arabic (N = 2) Palmer (2013); Shiri (2015) Chinese (N = 1) Zhang (2020) Different languages (N = 8) Berg (2009); Heinzmann et al. (2015); Lee & Markey (2014); O’Dowd (2000, 2003); Schenker (2012); Wang et al. (2013); Watson & Wolfel (2015) Zia Tajeddin, Neda Khanlarzadeh, Hessameddin Ghanbar 276 Italian (N = 2) Holmes et al. (2016); Tudini (2007) German (N = 1) Rothwell (2011) Language profi- ciency Not mentioned (N = 21) Alred & Byram (2002); Czerwionka et al. (2015); Busse & Krause (2015); Holmes (2006); Liaw (2006); Martinsen (2011); Medina-López-Portillo (2004); Mirzaei & Forouzandeh (2013); Palmer (2013); Peng & Wu (2016); Rodríguez & Puyal (2012); Root & Ngamporn- chai (2013); Sample (2013); Scally (2015); Schartner (2016); Su (2011a, 2011b); Truong & Tran (2014); Wang & Kulich (2015); Wang et al. (2013); Watson & Wolfel (2015) Beginner/ elementary (N = 3) Acheson et al. (2015); Rothwell (2011); Tran & Duong (2018) Intermediate (N = 11) Álvarez Valencia & Fernández Benavides (2019); Elola & Oskoz (2008); Heinzmann et al. (2015); Helm (2009); Kusumaningputri & Widodo (2018); Lee (2011, 2012); Lenkaitis et al. (2019); O’Dowd (2000); Tirnaz & Narafshan (2020); Tudini (2007) Advanced (N = 7) Busse & Krause (2016); Escudero (2013); Jackson (2011, 2017); Lee & Markey (2014); O’Dowd (2003); Özdemir (2017) Mixed (N = 14) Berg (2009); Bloom & Miranda (2015); Chen & Yang (2016); Cubillos & Ilvento (2018); Engle & Engle (2004); Hismanoglu (2011); Holmes et al. (2016); Houghton (2014); Ishii (2009); Schenker (2012); Shiri (2015); Yildiz (2009); Yu & Van Maele (2018); Zhang (2020) Finally, relating to the proficiency levels of participants, similar to L1 back- ground, less than half of the studies did not provide any demographic infor- mation about this learner variable (N = 21) (e.g., Busse & Krause, 2016; Scally, 2015; Schartner, 2016). It should be noted that most studies used students with different proficiency levels or mixed levels (N = 14) (e.g., Yildiz, 2009; Yu & Van Maele, 2018; Zhang, 2020), followed by intermediate levels (N = 11) (e.g., Heinz- mann et al., 2015; Kusumaningputri & Widodo, 2018; Lenkaitis et al., 2019), ad- vanced levels (N = 7) (e.g., Escudero, 2013; Jackson, 2017; Özdemir, 2017), and beginner levels (N = 3) (e.g., Acheson et al., 2015; Tran & Duong, 2018). 5.3. Theme 3: Effects of learner variables across contexts The last theme we analyzed was the effect of learner variables on their ICC. Out of 56, 15 studies reported on the effect of one of the variables of language pro- ficiency, age, previous contact or knowledge, gender, attitudinal, affective, or be- havioral factors, ethnicity, race, or nationality, and other variables (parents’ ed- ucational background and learners’ location) (e.g., Palmer, 2013; Peng & Wu, 2016; Scally, 2015). Table 8 outlines these studies. It should be noted that as the selected studies were of different research de- signs (i.e., quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods), the employed research methods and number of participants varied as well (from N = 10 to N = 1297). For example, O’Dowd (2003) and Bloom and Miranda (2015) employed 10 and 15 par- ticipants in their studies, respectively, while Heinzman et al. (2015) examined 540 Learner variables in the development of intercultural competence: A synthesis of home and study . . . 277 or Berg (2009) explored 1297 cases in their research. Moreover, the researchers as- sessed the ICC development of language learners in their studies using different as- sessment tools and techniques. The majority of the studies used questionnaires or tests which were mainly based on learners’ self-report and evaluations (e.g., Berg, 2009; Bloom & Miranda, 2015; Heinzman et al., 2015; Ishii, 2009; Martinsen, 2011; Mirzaei & Forouzandeh, 2013; Palmer, 2013; Peng & Wu, 2016; Scally, 2015). How- ever, some of them employed tasks or critical incidents which required the partici- pants to write down their answers (e.g., Busse & Krause, 2016; Hismanoglu, 2011; O’Dowd, 2003). Meanwhile, others used texts such as analysis of individuals’ utter- ances and chats (Tudini, 2007) or employed multiple assessment tools to enhance the depth of their analysis (Cubillos & Ilvento, 2018; Medina-López-Portillo, 2004). Table 8 Studies on the effects of learner variables Studies analyzing the effects of learner variables (N = 15) Berg (2009); Bloom & Miranda (2015); Busse & Krause (2016); Cubillos & Ilvento (2018); Heinzmann et al. (2015); Hismanoglu (2011); Ishii (2009); Martinsen (2011); Medina-López-Portillo (2004); Mirzaei & Forouzandeh (2013); O’Dowd (2003); Palmer (2013); Peng & Wu (2016); Scally (2015); Tudini (2007) Language proficiency Effective (N = 2) Heinzmann et al. (2015); Ishii (2009) Not effective (N = 4) Bloom & Miranda (2015); Cubillos & Ilvento (2018); Hismanoglu (2011); Martinsen (2011) Age Effective (N = 3) Heinzmann et al. (2015); Medina-López-Portillo (2004); Scally (2015) Not effective (N = 3) Bloom & Miranda (2015); Busse & Krause (2016); Palmer (2013) Gender Effective (N = 3) Berg (2009); Heinzmann et al. (2015); Medina-López-Portillo (2004) Not effective (N = 2) Mirzaei & Forouzandeh (2013); Palmer (2013) Attitudinal, affec- tive, or behav- ioral factors Effective (N = 3) Ishii (2009); O’Dowd (2003); Mirzaei & Forouzandeh (2013) Not effective (N = 1) Martinsen (2011) Ethnicity, race, or nationality Effective (N = 2) Heinzmann et al. (2015); Medina-López-Portillo (2004) Not effective (N = 0) None Previous contact Effective (N = 7) Busse & Krause (2016); Heinzmann et al. (2015); Hismanoglu (2011); Medina-López- Portillo (2004); Palmer (2013); Peng & Wu (2016); Scally (2015) Not effective (N = 1) Bloom & Miranda (2015) Zia Tajeddin, Neda Khanlarzadeh, Hessameddin Ghanbar 278 Other variables (parents’ educational background and learners’ location) Effective (N = 2) Heinzmann et al. (2015); Tudini (2007) Not effective (N = 0) None In what follows, we provide more details on the effects of these variables within the studies conducted in study abroad and home contexts. Moreover, we comment on exemplary studies from our corpus related to each learner variable in a specific context. Table 9 presents the number of studies in which learner variables were found to be either effective or non-effective across two different contexts, that is, study abroad and home. It should be noted that we reported on the effects in terms of their statistical significance in purely quantitative stud- ies and quantitative parts of mixed-methods studies (e.g., Busse & Krause, 2016; Palmer, 2013; Peng & Wu, 2016); however, in a few of our sample studies the term effective was used by researchers without reporting on any statistical sig- nificance (i.e., qualitative or mixed-methods studies), which is why while refer- ring to these studies, we just described the results as effective (O’Dowd, 2003). Table 9 also depicts the number of studies that targeted each learner variable. First, relating to language proficiency, it was found that this variable was exam- ined in six studies (e.g., Hismanoglu, 2011; Ishii, 2009). However, a statistically significant effect was reported in one research project carried out in a study abroad context (Heinzmann et al., 2015) and another in a home context (Ishii, 2009); that is, students with a higher level of language proficiency were signifi- cantly more successful in ICC learning. Also, language proficiency was shown not to have an effect in four studies conducted in a study abroad context (e.g., Cu- billos & Ilvento, 2018; Martinsen, 2011). Table 9 Effects of learner variables across contexts Learner variables Effective Effective Not effective Not effective Not analyzed Not analyzed Study abroad Home context Study abroad Home context Study abroad Home context Language proficiency 1 1 4 0 29 21 Age 3 0 2 1 20 30 Gender 3 0 1 1 22 29 Attitudinal, affective, or behavioral factors 0 3 1 0 25 27 Other variables (parents’ educational background and learners’ location) 1 1 0 0 25 29 Ethnicity, race or nationality 2 0 0 0 24 30 Age, as another learner variable, was investigated in six studies (e.g., Busse & Krause, 2016; Medina-López-Portillo, 2004). It was found to have been Learner variables in the development of intercultural competence: A synthesis of home and study . . . 279 effective in three studies (e.g., Medina-López-Portillo, 2004; Scally, 2015) imple- mented in study abroad contexts; to put it more precisely, individuals’ age dis- played a statistically significant negative correlation with their ICC competence (see Heinzmann et al., 2015; Medina-López-Portillo, 2004; Scally, 2015). How- ever, the age factor was found to have exerted no effect in the other two studies in the same context (e.g., Palmer, 2013) and one study in a home context (see Busse & Krausein, 2016). Regarding gender, which was examined in five studies (e.g., Berg, 2009; Heinzmann et al., 2015), it can be seen in Table 7 that it was only effective in three study abroad contexts (e.g., Heinzmann et al., 2015; Medina- López-Portillo, 2004); however, the findings were somewhat contradictory. For ex- ample, Heinzman et al. (2015) and Berg (2009) reported on females’ significantly better ICC performance, while Medina-López-Portillo (2004) found male students’ statistically significant higher ICC. Yet, gender was found to play no part in one study abroad context (see Palmer, 2013) and another study in a home context (see Mirzaei & Forouzandeh, 2013). Previous contact or knowledge, explored in eight studies (e.g., Busse & Krause, 2016; Scally, 2015), was reported to be more influ- ential in study abroad contexts in five studies (e.g., Medina-López-Portillo, 2004) in comparison with only two home context studies (e.g., Peng & Wu, 2016). How- ever, this variable was found to be not effective in one study abroad investigation (see Bloom & Miranda, 2015). In general, students who had contact with individ- uals from other cultures or experienced living abroad tended to have significantly higher ICC and performed better in ICC learning programs (see Heinzmann et al., 2015; Hismanoglu, 2011; Medina-López-Portillo, 2004). We also examined the effects of attitudinal, affective, and behavioral varia- bles. These variables, examined in four studies (see Table 9), were found to be ef- fective only in three home context studies (e.g., Ishii, 2009; O’Dowd, 2003) and not effective in only one study abroad context (see Martinsen, 2011). For example, Ishii (2009) reported some significant interaction effects between individual differences and treatment condition on cross-cultural attitudes. Mirzaei and Forouzandeh (2013) evidenced a strong statistically significant positive correlation between L2 learner ICC and motivation. Furthermore, O’Dowd (2003) reported that the ability of students to build up a personal relationship with their partners, their sensitivity to their partners’ needs, their communicative style, and their capacity to produce engaging, in-depth correspondence were found to be effective and led to ICC de- velopment. Ethnicity, race, or nationality are other factors which were scarcely in- vestigated in the studies in our corpus. It was uncovered that they were statistically significant variables in two studies conducted in the study abroad context (see Heinzmann et al., 2015; Medina-López-Portillo, 2004). Yet, Heinzmann et al. (2015) did not specify the details of the effects of students’ nationality on their ICC and only reported it as an explanatory variable in learners’ ICC. Medina-López-Portillo Zia Tajeddin, Neda Khanlarzadeh, Hessameddin Ghanbar 280 (2004) reported the importance of learners’ race and ethnicity in both quantitative and qualitative data; however, no ample detail was provided in this respect. Finally, the category named other variables included two variables, that is, individuals’ par- ents’ educational background and location, which were rarely examined. The vari- able of parents’ educational background proved to be statistically significant in one study abroad context (see Heinzmann et al., 2015). It was found that students whose parents had tertiary education were significantly more successful than oth- ers. Moreover, learners’ location was analyzed in one study implemented in a home context (see Tudini, 2007), which compared off-campus versus on-campus stu- dents’ communication patterns and revealed off-campus students’ significantly bet- ter performance in intercultural communication. 6. Discussion The aim of this study was to synthesize 56 studies to heighten the understanding of ICC development based on study abroad and home contexts, instruction, and learner variables. This synthesis revealed that a number of learner variables are implicated in ICC acquisition, including age, gender, L1 background, context of education, language proficiency, previous contact or knowledge, and attitudinal and behavioral variables. The first set of findings relates to context and instruction for ICC develop- ment. The findings showed that half of the studies were conducted in either the study abroad or home context. The role of these two contexts in second lan- guage acquisition, including ICC, has received great attention in many studies in the past two decades (e.g., Collentine & Freed, 2004; Isabelli-García & Isabelli, 2020; Kinginger, 2009, 2013; Mitchell & Tyne, 2021). These studies have un- veiled the role that classroom and/or study abroad have on self-regulatory strat- egies of L2 learners (e.g., Allen, 2013), intercultural mindset (e.g., Jackson, 2013), oral proficiency (e.g., Magnan & Back, 2007), grammatical competence (e.g., Lafford, 2006), and learner motivation (e.g., Bataller, 2010). In our corpus, the effects of home vs. study abroad contexts were not investigated compara- tively in a single study. Rather, each study was focused on either context. How- ever, it was found that instruction in the home context was the prevailing prac- tice in ICC development. In other studies, not included in our corpus, research- ers have repeatedly demonstrated the positive impact of studying abroad on ICC development (e.g., Lee, 2018; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). It is argued that in- tergroup contact during the study abroad experience helps reduce cultural prej- udice, improves intercultural competence skills, and facilitates intercultural un- derstanding and relations despite cultural, ethnic, and national differences. Learner variables in the development of intercultural competence: A synthesis of home and study . . . 281 Instruction vs. no instruction constituted another part of the first set of findings. It was found that the majority of the studies reviewed reported on in- struction in the classroom, while other studies for ICC development included no instructional phase. As to instruction-based ICC development, the studies we reviewed included 42 instructional interventions. Instructional tasks using tech- nology and online environments provide space for more contact with other us- ers of L2 in real-life contexts, more exposure to authentic interactions, and in- creased engagement in intercultural negotiation for moving from ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism. This is one of the main reasons for the burgeoning interest in explicit instruction, including the use of online social networking, to scaffold learn- ers’ ICC development. Furthermore, it helps learners gain cultural awareness, particularly when it draws on social networking to increase their chances of en- gaging in negotiation of meaning, discussing cultural issues, and eliciting mean- ings of cultural behavior from L2 speakers (O’Dowd, 2012). The second set of findings related to learner variables considered with re- spect to developing ICC. The learner variables that were analyzed in the studies reported in our synthesis included learner gender, age, L1 background, language proficiency, nationality, affective and behavioral factors, previous con- tact/knowledge, and parents’ educational background. However, in our corpus, these variables were not represented in the majority of the studies and/or were not explored to the same degree for their effects on ICC. L1 background, gender, and language proficiency were not reported in many ICC studies, although they constitute influential variables in second language acquisition (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015; Ellis, 2015; Norris & Ortega, 2000). Also, despite the importance of learner variables such as motivation, willingness to communicate, identity, and lan- guage learning strategies in second language acquisition studies (Dörnyei & Ush- ioda, 2009; MacIntyre et al., 2011; Norton & De Costa, 2018; Oxford, 2016), they were not among the variables reported in our corpus. This under-representation or non-representation of key learner variables results in our poor understanding of how ICC is developed in home and study abroad contexts and why there are differential gains in ICC among learners. The overall findings indicated that gender, age, and language proficiency were among the learner variables mostly described or observed for their impact on ICC development although the impact varied across home and study abroad contexts. Also, our findings revealed that most studies reported on ICC develop- ment without measuring the role of learner variables. Numerous studies not included in our analysis have demonstrated a mixed picture with respect to the impact of gender on intercultural competence (Goldstein & Kim, 2006; Holm et al., 2009; Mahon, 2006; Solhaug & Kristensen, 2020; Solhaug & Osler, 2017; Tompkins et al., 2017; Vande Berg et al., 2009). One major finding concerned Zia Tajeddin, Neda Khanlarzadeh, Hessameddin Ghanbar 282 gender differences in intercultural competence. In our analysis, gender was ef- fective in three studies but not in the others. It was found that females devel- oped higher intercultural skills following instruction (Heinzmann et al., 2015). Similarly, females showed significant gains in the intercultural development in- ventory (IDI). These mixed findings on gender differences are also evidenced in other studies not included in our synthesis. A number of researchers whose studies were not considered in our review reported no gender differences in intercultural competence and sensitivity (e.g., Chocce et al., 2015; Morales, 2017). For example, the studies conducted by Chocce et al. (2015) and Morales (2017) indicated that the development of intercultural sensitivity is not signifi- cantly affected by gender. However, numerous studies have reported that fe- males show higher intercultural sensitivity (Fabregas et al., 2012; Holm et al., 2009; Westrick, 2004). For instance, Holm et al. (2009) found that female stu- dents assessed their intercultural sensitivity higher than male students did. Also, Solhaug and Kristensens’s (2020) study revealed that female students exhibited sub- stantially higher intercultural competence (intercultural empathy and awareness) than their male counterparts. In another study, Tompkins et al.’s (2017) mixed meth- ods survey indicated that women participants ranked higher overall in their intercul- tural sensitivity than men, which they attribute to women’s more motivation to un- derstand, appreciate, and accept differences among cultures. The effect of gender was also found in the studies by Demircioğlu and Çakir (2016) and Bećirović et al. (2019), who reported a significant impact of gender on intercultural sensitivity. As to the age variable, our synthesis showed that age impacted intercul- tural competence in some, but not all, studies, particularly those conducted in study abroad contexts. Mixed findings were reported in other studies not listed in our corpus (e.g., Schwarzenthal et al., 2017; Williams, 2005; Yilmaz & Wujiab- udulai, 2019). Some studies reported that no age differences existed in the de- velopment of intercultural competence. For instance, Schwarzenthal et al. (2017) found that self-reported intercultural competence was unrelated to age. Similarly, Yilmaz and Wujiabudulai’s (2019) study showed no significant differ- ences in participants’ intercultural sensitivity in terms of age. By contrast, Wil- liams (2005) reported that age was among the major factors influencing change in students’ intercultural communication scores. Nonetheless, the majority of the reviewed research in the present study focused on adult language learners, as, in general, most of the conducted studies investigated the ICC development among upper-level and older L2 learners rather than beginners or young lan- guage learners. This was the case despite the fact that the importance of ICC in L2 primary classes has been highlighted in numerous studies (e.g., Acevedo, 2019; Byram & Doyé, 2005; Moloney, 2007). Cushner (2015) justified this under- representation by emphasizing the complexity of the construct for young learners Learner variables in the development of intercultural competence: A synthesis of home and study . . . 283 and claiming that the majority of the existing ICC assessment tools might not be appropriate for young L2 learners. Our synthesis research showed that the language proficiency of partici- pants was not reported in the majority of the studies. Of the six studies outlining the effect of language proficiency, a significant effect was found in only one study. Language learning, along with corollary development of language proficiency, is likely to interact with intercultural development. However, its effect is not strongly supported in our pool of studies. This finding echoes intercultural competence researchers’ argument that there are preconditions for the effect of proficiency on ICC (Bennet, 2008; Byram & Feng, 2004; Davies et al., 2005). Raising this issue, Bennett (2008) argued that language learning and hence language proficiency may not be a sufficient condition for intercultural development. In the same vein, Davies et al. (2005) maintained that the effect of foreign language learning de- pends on the degree to which the curriculum is intercultural in orientation. As such, Perry and Southwell (2011) concluded that many studies have not been able to substantiate a causal relationship between language learning and inter- cultural development (e.g., Byram & Feng, 2004). Learners’ L1 background, L2, and nationality were among other variables analyzed in this synthesis research. Although the number of studies targeting these variables was very limited, it has been found that in some cases individuals’ L1, nationality, and race can affect their ICC (see Heinzmann et al., 2015; Medina- López-Portillo, 2004). As highlighted in Medina-López-Portillo’s (2004) study, dur- ing study abroad students are confronted with relating to their race and ethnicity. Owing to their race, those of European-American ethnicity might believe they are privileged over other students, including African-Americans. In fact, due to the link between race and culture, the results do not seem unreasonable. As to L2, we found that about half of the studies investigated the ICC development of learn- ers of L2 English followed by L2 Spanish. The predominant focus on L2 English in ICC studies sounds logical due to its status as an international language (McKay, 2018; McKay & Bokhorst-Heng, 2008; Seidlhofer, 2007; Sharifian, 2009). Also, Eng- lish is the only language with its non-native speakers surpassing native speakers in number. In view of this, numerous studies have sought to shed light on ICC de- velopment in the case of learners and users of English (e.g., Chen & Yang, 2016; Jackson, 2011; Wang & Kulich, 2015; Yu & Van Maele, 2018). In our corpus, Span- ish ranked second in the number of studies devoted to ICC development. With about 20 countries listing Spanish as their official language and Spanish being the second most spoken language after Mandarin, there is good reason to learn Span- ish and use it. This status of Spanish as the target of many L2 learners has moti- vated numerous researchers to study the ICC of L2 Spanish users and learners (e.g., Helm, 2009; Lee, 2012; Lenkaitis et al., 2019; Martinsen, 2011). Zia Tajeddin, Neda Khanlarzadeh, Hessameddin Ghanbar 284 A set of other learner variables were analyzed in our synthesis, including atti- tudinal, affective, and behavioral factors, individuals’ parents’ educational back- ground, previous contact and knowledge, and ethnicity. The findings indicated greater effectiveness of attitudinal, affective, or behavioral factors in home contexts, as illustrated in the studies by Ishii (2009) and O’Dowd (2003). Ishii (2009) found that task-based intercultural instruction on intercultural competence was effective in Jap- anese secondary EFL learners’ ICC. Similarly, O’Dowd’s (2003) study showed the im- pact of a Spanish-English e-mail exchange on intercultural learning in the home con- text. This is in line with other studies that have examined the interface between atti- tudes and intercultural competence and reported mixed findings (e.g., Vuksanovic, 2018). Although both Byram’s (1997) and Deardorff’s (2006) model of intercultural competence includes an attitudinal component, the results of Vuksanovic’s (2018) study demonstrated no significant correlation between the two variables. However, Smakova and Paulsrud (2020) found that their respondents’ effective and appropriate communication with people of other cultural backgrounds was fostered by cognitive, affective, and behavioral skills. 7. Conclusion This synthesis research set out to investigate research on the development of ICC in study abroad and home contexts and the nexus between ICC and learner variables. Our review illustrates that both contexts were examined to trace learners’ ICC development. While the majority of the studies provided evidence for the need for instruction, a number of them showed that exposure-based non-explicit instruction can be influential in gaining ICC. A great number of stud- ies reporting on ICC instruction substantiates the mounting significance of tech- nological facilities for creating spaces for intercultural awareness. Also, the stud- ies conducted in the study abroad context emphasize the role of this context in creating opportunities for more intercultural contacts and providing relevant in- put. Moreover, the findings of this synthesis research on learner variables illus- trate the complexity of their effects on ICC gains and the underrepresentation of most variables in ICC research. Out of the studies reviewed, 15 reported on the effect of one learner variable, whereas the others did not report on this ef- fectiveness. This indicates that learner variables, a key concept in second lan- guage acquisition, need to feature more prominently in ICC research to advance our understanding of their contribution to ICC development. While the findings of this synthesis research may have revealed the con- tribution of learner variables to the development of ICC, it has some limitations. First, our inclusion criterion was to analyze studies published between 2000- 2020. A wider time span could be considered in future research to provide a Learner variables in the development of intercultural competence: A synthesis of home and study . . . 285 chronologically clearer picture of context, instruction, and learner variables in ICC studies. Second, we excluded book chapters, short studies, and disserta- tions. Stronger evidence might be provided if other researchers include these three data sources in their analysis. Third, we included studies from journals published by selected leading international publishers. Further studies could en- large this corpus by considering other publishers, such as John Benjamins and Equinox, as well as journals published by universities and institutions. Finally, as studies included in our research were limited to those that reported on L2 learner participants, future research could address the ICC development of stu- dents from non-language fields of education. Zia Tajeddin, Neda Khanlarzadeh, Hessameddin Ghanbar 286 References1 Abe, H., & Wiseman, R. L. (1983). A cross-cultural confirmation of the dimen- sions of intercultural effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 7(1), 53-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(83)90005-6 Acevedo, M. V. (2019). Young children playing their way into intercultural under- standing. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 19(3), 375-398. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1468798417727134 *Acheson, K., Nelson, M., & Luna, K. (2015). Measuring the impact of instruction in intercultural communication on secondary Spanish learners’ attitudes and motivation. Foreign Language Annals, 48(2), 203-217. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/flan.12132 Alhamami, M. (2018). Beliefs about and intention to learn a foreign language in face-to-face and online settings. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(1-2), 90-113. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1387154 Allen, H. W. (2013). Self-regulatory strategies of foreign language learners: From the classroom to study abroad and beyond. In C. Kinginger (Ed.), Social and cultural aspects of language learning in study abroad (pp. 47-73). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.37.03wil Alptekin, C. (1993). Target-language culture in EFL materials. ELT Journal, 47(2), 136-143. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/47.2.136 Alptekin, C. (2002). Towards intercultural communicative competence in ELT. ELT Journal, 56(1), 57-64. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/56.1.57 *Alred, G., & Byram, M. (2002). Becoming an intercultural mediator: A longitudi- nal study of residence abroad. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural De- velopment, 23(5), 339-352. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434630208666473 *Álvarez Valencia, J. A., & Fernández Benavides, A. (2019). Using social networking sites for language learning to develop intercultural competence in language education programs. Journal of International and Intercultural Communica- tion, 12(1), 23-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/17513057.2018.1503318 Amiryousefi, M. (2018). Willingness to communicate, interest, motives to com- municate with the instructor, and L2 speaking: A focus on the role of age and gender. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 12(3), 221- 234. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2016.1170838 Aragão, R. (2011). Beliefs and emotions in foreign language learning. System, 39 (3), 302-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.07.003 Artieda, G., Roquet, H., & Nicolás-Conesa, F. (2020). The impact of age and ex- posure on EFL achievement in two learning contexts: Formal instruction 1 References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the systematic review. Learner variables in the development of intercultural competence: A synthesis of home and study . . . 287 and formal instruction + content and language integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(4), 449- 472. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1373059 Avgousti, M. I. (2018). Intercultural communicative competence and online ex- changes: A systematic review. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(8), 819-853. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1455713 Bagwe, T. K., & Haskollar, E. (2020). Variables impacting intercultural competence: A systematic literature review. Journal of Intercultural Communication Re- search, 49(4), 346-371. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2020.1771751 Baker, W. (2015). Research into practice: Cultural and intercultural awareness. Lan- guage Teaching, 48(1), 130-141. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444814000287 Baker, W., & Fang, F. (2021): “So maybe I’m a global citizen:” Developing intercul- tural citizenship in English medium education. Language, Culture and Cur- riculum, 34(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2020.1748045 Baker-Smemoe, W., Dewey, D. P., Bown, J., & Martinsen, R. A. (2014). Variables affecting L2 gains during study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 47(3), 464-486. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12093 Bataller, R. (2010). Making a request for a service in Spanish: Pragmatic devel- opment in the study abroad setting. Foreign Language Annals, 43(1), 160- 175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2010.01065.x Bećirović, S. (2017). The relationship between gender, motivation and achievement in learning English as a foreign language. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 6(2), 210-220. https://doi.org/10.13187/ejced.2017.2.210 Bećirović, S., Brdarević Čeljo, A., & Zavrl, I. (2019). Research into intercultural effectiveness in a multicultural educational milieu in Bosnia and Herze- govina. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 32(1), 1336-1351. https:// doi.org/10.1080/1331677x.2019.1629329 Bennett, J. M. (2008). On becoming a global soul. In V. Savicki (Ed.), Developing intercultural competence and transformation: Theory, research and appli- cation in international education (pp. 13-31). Stylus. Bennett, J. M., Bennett, M. J., & Allen, W. (1999). Developing intercultural com- petence in the language classroom. In R. M. Paige, D. L. Lange, & Y. A. Yer- shova (Eds.), Culture as the core: Integrating culture into the language cur- riculum (pp. 13-46). CARLA, University of Minnesota. *Berg, M. V. (2009). Intervening in student learning abroad: A research-based inquiry. Intercultural Education, 20(1), 15-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/14 675980903370821 Biell, G., & Doff, S. (2014). It takes more than two for this tango: Moving beyond the self/other-binary in teaching about culture in the global EFL-classroom. Zeitschrift für interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht, 19(1), 77-96. Zia Tajeddin, Neda Khanlarzadeh, Hessameddin Ghanbar 288 *Bloom, M., & Miranda, A. (2015). Intercultural sensitivity through short-term study abroad. Language and Intercultural Communication, 15(4), 567- 580. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2015.1056795 Bradford, L., Allen, M., & Beisser, K. R. (1998). Meta-analysis of intercultural com- munication competence research. World Communication, 29(1), 28-51. Brunton, G., Stransfield, C., & Thomas, J. (2012). Finding relevant studies. In D. Gough, S. Oliver & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews (pp. 107-134). SAGE. *Busse, V., & Krause, U. M. (2015). Addressing cultural diversity: Effects of a problem-based intercultural learning unit. Learning Environments Re- search, 18(3), 425-452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-015-9193-2 *Busse, V., & Krause, U. M. (2016). Instructional methods and languages in class: A comparison of two teaching approaches and two teaching languages in the field of intercultural learning. Learning and Instruction, 42, 83-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.006 Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative compe- tence. Multilingual Matters. Byram, M. (2008). From foreign language education to education for intercultural citizenship. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847690807 Byram, M. (2019). Intercultural language teaching in an era of internationaliza- tion. In P. Romanowski & E. Bandura (Eds.), Intercultural foreign language teaching and learning in higher education contexts (pp. 99-120). IGI Glo- bal. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-8128-4.ch005 Byram, M., & Doyé, P. (2005). Intercultural competence and foreign language learning in the primary school. In P. Driscoll & D. Frost (Eds.), Teaching modern languages in the primary school (pp. 155-168). Routledge. Byram, M., & Feng, A. (2004). Culture and language learning: Teaching, research and scholarship. Language Teaching, 37(3), 149-168. https://doi.org/10.10 17/s0261444804002289 Byram, M., Holmes, P., & Savvides, N. (2013). Intercultural communicative com- petence in foreign language education: Questions of theory, practice and research. The Language Learning Journal, 41(3), 251-253. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09571736.2013.836343 Byram, M., & Wagner, M. (2018). Making a difference: Language teaching for intercultural and international dialogue. Foreign Language Annals, 51(1), 140-151. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12319 Byram, M., & Zarate, G. (1994). Definitions, objectives, and assessment of socio- cultural competence. Council of Europe. Learner variables in the development of intercultural competence: A synthesis of home and study . . . 289 Calafato, R., & Tang, F. (2019). Multilingualism and gender in the UAE: A look at the motivational selves of Emirati teenagers. System, 84, 133-144. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.06.006 *Chen, J. J., & Yang, S. C. (2016). Promoting cross-cultural understanding and language use in research-oriented Internet-mediated intercultural ex- change. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(2), 262-288. https://doi. org/ 10.1080/09588221.2014.937441 Chocce, J., Johnson, D. A., & Yossatorn, Y. (2015). Predictive factors of freshmen’s intercultural sensitivity. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 5(10), 778-782. https://doi.org/10.7763/ijiet.2015.v5.610 Clark, A., & Trafford, J. (1995). Boys into modern languages: An investigation of the discrepancy in attitudes and performance between boys and girls in modern languages. Gender and Education, 7(3), 315-325. https://doi.org/10. 1080/09540259550039022 Collentine, J., & Freed, B. (2004). Learning context and its effects on second lan- guage acquisition: Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(2), 153-171. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263104262015 Corbett, J. (2003). An intercultural approach to English language teaching. Mul- tilingual Matters. Council of Europe. (2008). White paper on intercultural dialogue: Living together as equals in dignity CM 2008 30. Council of Europe. Csizér, K. (2017). Motivation in the L2 classroom. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 418-432). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315676968-23 Cushner, K. (2015). Development and assessment of intercultural competence. In M. Hayden, J. Levy, & J. Thompson (Eds.) The Sage handbook of research in international education (2nd ed., pp. 2000-2016). SAGE. *Cubillos, J., & Ilvento, T. (2018). Intercultural contact in short-term study abroad pro- grams. Hispania, 101(2), 249-266. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpn.2018.0117 *Czerwionka, L., Artamonova, T., & Barbosa, M. (2015). Intercultural knowledge development: Evidence from student interviews during short-term study abroad. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 49, 80-99. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.06.01 Davies, L., Evans, M., & Reid, A. (2005). Globalising citizenship education? A critique of “global education” and “citizenship education.” British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(1), 66-89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2005.00284.x Deardorff, D. K. (2004). The identification and assessment of intercultural compe- tence as a student outcome of internationalization at institutions of higher education in the United States (Doctoral dissertation). https://repository. lib.ncsu.edu/bitstream/handle/1840.16/5733/etd.pdf?sequence=1&is Zia Tajeddin, Neda Khanlarzadeh, Hessameddin Ghanbar 290 Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal Studies in International Education, 10(3), 241-266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315306287002 Demircioğlu, S., & Çakir, C. (2016). Intercultural competence of students in In- ternational Baccalaureate world schools in Turkey and Abroad. Interna- tional Education Studies, 9(9), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n9p1 Dörnyei. Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. Routledge. Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (Eds.). (2009). Motivation, language identity and the L2 self. Multilingual Matters. East, M. (2012). Addressing the intercultural via task-based language teaching: Possibility or problem? Language and Intercultural Communication, 12(1), 56-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2011.626861 Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. *Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2008). Blogging: Fostering intercultural competence develop- ment in foreign language and study abroad contexts. Foreign Language An- nals, 41(3), 454-477. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2008.tb03307.x *Engle, L., & Engle, J. (2004). Assessing language acquisition and intercultural sensitivity development in relation to study abroad program design. Fron- tiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10(1), 219-236. https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v10i1.142 Ennis, M. J., & Riley, C. E. (Eds.). (2018). Practices in intercultural language teach- ing and learning. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. *Escudero, M. D. P. (2013). Teaching intercultural awareness in the English as a for- eign language classroom: A case study using critical reading. Intercultural Ed- ucation, 24(3), 251-263. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2013.793037 Fabregas, J. M. G., Kelsey, K., & Robinson, S. (2012). Predicting intercultural sen- sitivity using demographic variables among college of agriculture under- graduate students. US-China Education Review, 8, 710-719. https://doi.org/ 10.5191/jiaee.2011.18103 Furstenberg, G. (2010). A dynamic, web-based methodology for developing in- tercultural understanding. In P. Hinds, A. Søderberg, & R. Vatrapu (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on intercultural collabo- ration (pp. 49-58). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/1841853.1841861 Ghasemi, A. A., Ahmadian, M., Yazdani, H., & Amerian, M. (2020). Towards a model of intercultural communicative competence in Iranian EFL context: Testing the role of international posture, ideal L2 self, L2 self-confidence, Learner variables in the development of intercultural competence: A synthesis of home and study . . . 291 and metacognitive strategies. Journal of Intercultural Communication Re- search, 49(1), 41-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2019.1705877 Godwin-Jones, R. (2013). Integrating intercultural competence into language learning through technology. Language Learning & Technology, 17(2), 1-11. Godwin-Jones, R. (2019). Telecollaboration as an approach to developing intercultural communication competence. Language Learning & Technology, 23(3), 8-28. Goldstein, S. B., & Kim, R. I. (2006). Predictors of US college students’ participation in study abroad programs: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Intercul- tural Relations, 30(4), 507-521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.10.001 Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2013). Learning from research: Systematic reviews for informing policy decisions: A quick guide. A paper for the alli- ance for useful evidence. Nesta. Gu, X. (2015). Assessment of intercultural communicative competence in FL ed- ucation: A survey on EFL teachers’ perception and practice in China. Lan- guage and Intercultural Communication, 16(2), 254-273. https://doi.org/10. 1080/14708477.2015.1083575 Gudykunst, W. B., & Hammer, M. R. (1984). Dimensions of intercultural effective- ness: Culture specific or culture general? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 8(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(84)90003-8 Guilherme, M. (2000). Intercultural competence. In M. Byram (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning (pp. 298-300). Routledge. *Heinzmann, S., Künzle, R., Schallhart, N., & Müller, M. (2015). The effect of study abroad on intercultural competence: Results from a longitudinal quasi-ex- perimental study. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 26(1), 187-208. https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v26i1.366 *Helm, F. (2009). Language and culture in an online context: What can learner dia- ries tell us about intercultural competence? Language and Intercultural Com- munication, 9(2), 91-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708470802140260 *Hismanoglu, M. (2011). An investigation of ELT students’ intercultural commu- nicative competence in relation to linguistic proficiency, overseas experi- ence and formal instruction. International Journal of Intercultural Rela- tions, 35(6), 805-817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.09.001 Ho, S. T. K. (2009). Addressing culture in EFL classrooms: The challenge of shift- ing from a traditional to an intercultural stance. Electronic Journal of For- eign Language Teaching, 6(1), 63-76. Holliday, A. (2011). Intercultural communication and ideology. SAGE. https://doi. org/10.4135/9781446269107 Holm, K., Nokelainen, P., & Tirri, K. (2009). Relationship of gender and academic achievement to Finnish students’ intercultural sensitivity. High Ability Stud- ies, 20(2), 187-200, https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130903358543 Zia Tajeddin, Neda Khanlarzadeh, Hessameddin Ghanbar 292 *Holmes, P. (2006). Problematising intercultural communication competence in the pluricultural classroom: Chinese students in a New Zealand university. Language and Intercultural Communication, 6(1), 18-34. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/14708470608668906 *Holmes, P., Bavieri, L., Ganassin, S., & Murphy, J. (2016). Interculturality and the study abroad experience: Students’ learning from the IEREST materi- als. Language and Intercultural Communication, 16(3), 452-469. https:// doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2016.1168054 *Houghton, S. A. (2014). Exploring manifestations of curiosity in study abroad as part of intercultural communicative competence. System, 42, 368-382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.12.024 Howard-Hamilton, M. F., Richardson, B. J., & Shuford, B. (1998). Promoting multicultural education: A holistic approach. College Student Affairs Journal, 18(1), 5-17. Hughes, G. (1986). An argument for cultural analysis in the second language classroom. In M. Valdes (Ed.), Culture bound: Bridging the cultural gap in language teaching (pp. 162-169). Cambridge University Press. Isabelli-García, C. L., & Isabelli, C. A. (2020). Researching second language acquisition in the study abroad learning environment: An introduction for student research- ers. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25157-4 *Ishii, E. (2009). The effects of task-based intercultural instruction on the inter- cultural competence of Japanese secondary EFL learners. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 19, 159-181. *Jackson, J. (2011). Host language proficiency, intercultural sensitivity, and study abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 21(1), 167- 188. https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v21i1.308 Jackson, J. (2013). The transformation of “a frog in the well:” A path to a more intercultural, global mindset. In C. Kinginger (Ed.), Social and cultural as- pects of language learning in study abroad (pp. 179-204). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.37.08jac *Jackson, J. (2017). Intervening in the intercultural learning of L2 study abroad students: From research to practice. Language Teaching, 51(3), 365-382. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444816000392 Ke, S., & Chan, S. D. (2017). Strategy use in L2 Chinese reading: The effect of L1 background and L2 proficiency. System, 66, 27-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.system.2017.03.005 Kim, M.-S., & Ebesu Hubbard, A. S. (2007). Intercultural Communication in the global village: How to understand “The other.” Journal of Intercultural Communica- tion Research, 36(3), 223-235. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475750701737165 Learner variables in the development of intercultural competence: A synthesis of home and study . . . 293 Kim, R. I., & Goldstein, S. B. (2005). Intercultural attitudes predict favorable study abroad expectations of US college students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 9(3), 265-278. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315305277684 Kinginger, C. (2009). Language learning and study abroad: A critical reading of re- search. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230240766_1 Kinginger, C. (2013). Social and cultural aspects of language learning in study abroad. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.37.01kin Koester, J., & Olebe, M. (1988). The behavioral assessment scale for intercultural communication effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural Rela- tions, 12(3), 233-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(88)90017-x Kohler, M. (2020). Developing intercultural language learning. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59113-7_3 Kormos, J., & Csizér, K. (2008). Age-related differences in the motivation of learn- ing English as a foreign language: Attitudes, selves, and motivated learning behavior. Language Learning, 58(2), 327-355. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14 67-9922.2008.00443.x Kramsch, C. (2011). Theorizing translingual/transcultural competence. In G. S. Levine, A. Phipps, & C. Blyth (Eds.), Critical and intercultural theory and language pedagogy (pp. 15-31). Cengage Learning. https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9781315708232-7 Kramsch, C., & Nolden, T. (1994). Redefining literacy in a foreign language. Die Unterrichtspraxis, 27(1), 28-35. https://doi.org/10.2307/3531473 Kubota, R. (1998). Ideologies of English in Japan. World Englishes, 17(3), 295- 306. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-971x.00105 *Kusumaningputri, R., & Widodo, H. P. (2018). Promoting Indonesian university students’ critical intercultural awareness in tertiary EAL classrooms: The use of digital photograph-mediated intercultural tasks. System, 72, 49-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.10.003 Lafford, B. (2006). The effects of study abroad vs. classroom contexts on Spanish SLA: Old assumptions, new insights and future research directions. In C. Klee & T. Face (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 7th conference on the acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as first and second languages (pp. 1-25). Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Lázár, I. (2015). EFL learners’ intercultural competence development in an inter- national web collaboration project. The Language Learning Journal, 43(2), 208-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2013.869941 Lee, J. H. (2018). The effects of short-term study abroad on L2 anxiety, interna- tional posture, and L2 willingness to communicate. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 39(8), 703-714. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01434632.2018.1435666 Zia Tajeddin, Neda Khanlarzadeh, Hessameddin Ghanbar 294 *Lee, L. (2011). Blogging: Promoting learner autonomy and intercultural com- petence through study abroad. Language Learning & Technology, 15(3), 87-109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2012.01164.x *Lee, L. (2012). Engaging study abroad students in intercultural learning through blogging and ethnographic interviews. Foreign Language Annals, 45(1), 7- 21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2012.01164.x *Lee, L., & Markey, A. (2014). A study of learners’ perceptions of online intercul- tural exchange through Web 2.0 technologies. ReCALL, 26(3), 281-297. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0958344014000111 Lee, S., & Pulido, D. (2017). The impact of topic interest, L2 proficiency, and gender on EFL incidental vocabulary acquisition through reading. Language Teaching Research, 21(1), 118-135. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816637381 *Lenkaitis, C. A., Calo, S., & Venegas Escobar, S. (2019). Exploring the intersection of language and culture via telecollaboration: Utilizing videoconferencing for in- tercultural competence development. International Multilingual Research Journal, 13(2), 102-115. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2019.1570772 Lewis, T., & O’Dowd, R. (2016). Online intercultural exchange and foreign lan- guage learning: A systematic review. In R. O’Dowd & T. Lewis (Eds.), Online intercultural exchange: Policy, pedagogy, practice (pp. 21-68). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315678931 *Liaw, M. L. (2006). E-learning and the development of intercultural compe- tence. Language Learning & Technology, 10(3), 49-64. Liddicoat, A., & Scarino, A. (2010). Eliciting the intercultural in foreign language education at school. In L. Sercu & A. Paran (Eds.), Testing the untestable in language and education. (pp. 52- 73). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/ 10.21832/9781847692672-006 Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. SAGE. MacIntyre, P. D., Burns, C., & Jessome, A. (2011). Ambivalence about communi- cating in a second language: A qualitative study of French immersion stu- dent’s willingness to communicate. Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 81- 96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01141.x Magnan, S., & Back, M. (2007). Social interaction and linguistic gain during study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 40, 43-61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.19 44-9720.2007.tb02853.x Mahon, J. (2006). Under the visible cloak? Teacher understanding of cultural dif- ference. Intercultural Education, 17, 391-405. https://doi.org/10.1080/14 675980600971426 Marinova-Todd, S. H., Marshall, D. B., & Snow, C. E. (2000). Three misconceptions about age and L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 9-34. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/3588095 Learner variables in the development of intercultural competence: A synthesis of home and study . . . 295 Martin, J. N., & Hammer, M. R. (1989). Behavioral categories of intercultural commu- nication competence: Everyday communicators’ perceptions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13(3), 303-332. https://doi.org/10.1016 /0147-1767(89)90015-1 *Martinsen, R. (2011). Predicting changes in cultural sensitivity among students of Spanish during short-term study abroad. Hispania, 94, 121-141. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2010.01095.x McCloskey, E. (2012). Global teachers: A conceptual model for building teachers’ intercultural competence online. Comunicar: Revista Científica de Comuni- cación y Educación, 19(38), 41-49. https://doi.org/10.3916/c38-2012-02-04 McKay, S. L. (2018). English as an international Language: What it is and what it means for pedagogy. RELC Journal, 49(1), 9-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/00 33688217738817 McKay, S. L. & Bokhorst-Heng, W. D. (2008). International English in its sociolin- guistic contexts. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315092553 *Medina-López-Portillo, A. (2004). Intercultural learning assessment: The link between program duration and the development of intercultural sensitiv- ity. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10(1), 179- 200. https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v10i1.141 *Mirzaei, A., & Forouzandeh, F. (2013). Relationship between intercultural com- municative competence and L2-learning motivation of Iranian EFL learn- ers. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 42(3), 300-318. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2013.816867 Mitchell, R., & Tyne, H. (2021). Language, mobility and study abroad in the contempo- rary European context. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003087953 Moloney, A. R. (2007). Intercultural competence in young language learners: A case study (Doctoral dissertation). University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Morales, A. (2017). Intercultural sensitivity, gender, and nationality of third culture kids attending an international high school. Journal of International Educa- tion Research, 13(1), 35-44. https://doi.org/10.19030/jier.v13i1.9969 Mori, S., & Gobel, P. (2006). Motivation and gender in the Japanese EFL classroom. System, 34(2), 194-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.11.002 Moskovsky, C., Assulaimani, T., Racheva, S., & Harkins, J. (2016). The L2 motivational self system and L2 achievement: A study of Saudi EFL learners. Modern Lan- guage Journal, 100(3), 641-654. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12340 Namaziandost, E., & Çakmak, F. (2020). An account of EFL learners’ self-efficacy and gender in the Flipped Classroom Model. Education and Information Technol- ogies, 25, 4041-4055. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10167-7 Zia Tajeddin, Neda Khanlarzadeh, Hessameddin Ghanbar 296 National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project. (2006). Standards for foreign language learning in the 21st century (3rd ed.). National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project. Neff, P., & Apple, M. (2020). Short-term and long-term study abroad: The impact on language learners’ intercultural communication, L2 confidence, and sense of L2 self. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2020.1847125 Norris, M., & Ortega, L. (Eds.). (2010). Synthesizing research on language learn- ing and teaching. John Benjamins. Norton, B., & De Costa, P. I. (2018). Research tasks on identity in language learn- ing and teaching. Language Teaching, 51(1), 90-112. Norton, B., & Pavlenko, A. (2004). Addressing gender in the ESL/EFL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 38(3), 504-514. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588351 *O’Dowd, R. (2000). Intercultural learning via videoconferencing: A pilot exchange project. ReCALL, 12(1), 49-61. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0958344000000616 *O’Dowd, R. (2003). Understanding the „other side:” Intercultural learning in a Span- ish-English e-mail exchange. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 118-144. O’Dowd, R. (2012). Intercultural communicative competence through telecol- laboration. In J. Hackson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication (pp. 342-358). Routledge. https://doi.org/10. 4324/9780203805640.ch21 O’Dowd, R. & Dooly, M. (2020). Intercultural communicative competence through telecollaboration and virtual exchange. In J. Jackson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication (2nd ed., pp. 361-375). Routledge. Oxford, R. L. (2016). Teaching and researching language learning strategies: Self-regulation in context. Routledge. Oz, H. (2015). Ideal L2 self as a predictor of intercultural communicative compe- tence. The Anthropologist, 19(1), 41-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/097200 73.2015.11891637 *Özdemir, E. (2017). Promoting EFL learners’ intercultural communication effec- tiveness: A focus on Facebook. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(6), 510-528. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1325907 *Palmer, J. (2013). Intercultural competence and language variety on study abroad programs: L2 learners of Arabic. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 22(1), 58-83. https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v22i1.319 Pan, S. (2007). Intercultural communication apprehension, ethnocentrism and their relationship with gender: A cross-cultural comparison between the U.S. and China. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association Conference, New Orleans, LA. Learner variables in the development of intercultural competence: A synthesis of home and study . . . 297 Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students (Vol. 2): A third decade of research. Jossey-Bass. Patricia, M. Y. (2005). Asian American adolescents and the stress of accultura- tion: Differences in gender and generational levels (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ. *Peng, R. Z., & Wu, W. P. (2016). Measuring intercultural contact and its effects on intercultural competence: A structural equation modeling approach. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 53, 16-27. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2016.05.003 Perry, L. B., & Southwell, L. (2011). Developing intercultural understanding and skills: Models and approaches. Intercultural Education, 22(6), 453-466. https:// doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2011.644948 Piątkowska, K. (2015). From cultural knowledge to intercultural communicative competence: Changing perspectives on the role of culture in foreign lan- guage teaching. Intercultural Education, 26(5), 397-408. https://doi.org/10. 1080/14675986.2015.1092674 Reid, E. (2015). Techniques developing intercultural communicative compe- tences in English language lessons. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sci- ences, 186, 939-943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.011 Risager, K. (2007). Language and culture pedagogy: From a national to a transnational paradigm. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853599613 *Rodríguez, L. M. G., & Puyal, M. B. (2012). Promoting intercultural competence through literature in CLIL contexts. Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies, 34(2), 105-124. *Root, E., & Ngampornchai, A. (2013). “I Came Back as a New Human Being” student descriptions of intercultural competence acquired through edu- cation abroad experiences. Journal of Studies in International Education, 17(5), 513-532. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315312468008 *Rothwell, J. (2011). Bodies and language: Process drama and intercultural lan- guage learning in a beginner language classroom. Research in Drama Ed- ucation: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance, 16(4), 575-594. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569783.2011.617106 Ruiz-Funes, M. (2015). Exploring the potential of second/foreign language writ- ing for language learning: The effects of task factors and learner variables. Journal of Second Language Writing, 28, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jslw.2015.02.001 *Sample, S. G. (2013). Developing intercultural learners through the interna- tional curriculum. Journal of Studies in International Education, 17(5), 554- 572. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315312469986 Zia Tajeddin, Neda Khanlarzadeh, Hessameddin Ghanbar 298 *Scally, J. (2015). Intercultural competence development in three different study abroad program types. Intercultural Communication Studies, 24(2), 35-60. Scarino, A., & Liddicoat, A. J. (2009). Language teaching and learning: A guide. Cur- riculum Corporation. *Schartner, A. (2016). The effect of study abroad on intercultural competence: A longitudinal case study of international postgraduate students at a Brit- ish university. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 37(4), 402-418. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2015.1073737 *Schenker, T. (2012). Intercultural competence and cultural learning through tel- ecollaboration. CALICO Journal, 29(3), 449-470. https://doi.org/10.11139/ cj.29.3.449-470 Seidlhofer, B (2007). Common property: English as a lingua franca in Europe. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of language teaching (pp. 137-150). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-46301-8_11 Sercu, L. (2006). The foreign language and intercultural competence teacher: The acquisition of a new professional identity. Intercultural Education, 17(1), 55-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675980500502321 Sharifian, F. (Ed.). (2009). English as an international language: Perspectives and peda- gogical issues. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691231 *Shiri, S. (2015). Intercultural communicative competence development during and after language study abroad: Insights from Arabic. Foreign Language Annals, 48(4), 541-569. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12162 Smakova, K., & Paulsrud, B. (2020). Intercultural communicative competence in English language teaching in Kazakhstan. Issues in Educational Research, 30(2), 691-708. Retrieved from http://www.iier.org.au/iier30/smakova.pdf Solhaug, T., & Kristensen, N. N. (2020). Gender and intercultural competence: Analysis of intercultural competence among upper secondary school stu- dents in Denmark and Norway. Educational Psychology, 40(1), 120-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1646410 Solhaug, T., & Osler, A. (2017). Intercultural empathy among Norwegian students: An inclusive citizenship perspective. International Journal of Inclusive Educa- tion, 22(1), 89-110. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1357768 Song, J. (2020). The effects of a short-term study abroad program on developing students’ intercultural competence and oral proficiency. Linguistic Research, 37(special edition), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.17250/khisli.37 ..202009.001 *Su, Y. C. (2011a). Promoting intercultural understanding and reducing stereotypes: Incorporating the cultural portfolio project into Taiwan’s EFL college classes. Ed- ucational Studies, 37(1), 73-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055691003729039 Learner variables in the development of intercultural competence: A synthesis of home and study . . . 299 *Su, Y. C. (2011b). The effects of the cultural portfolio project on cultural and EFL learning in Taiwan’s EFL college classes. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 230-252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810388721 Sung, H., & Padilla, A. (1998). Student motivation, parental attitudes, and in- volvement in the learning of Asian languages in elementary and second- ary schools. Modern Language Journal, 82(2), 205-216. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01193.x Tecedor, M., & Vasseur, R. (2020). Videoconferencing and the development of intercultural competence: Insights from students’ self-reflections. Foreign Language Annals, 53(4), 761-784. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12495 Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Re- lations, 22(2), 187-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0147-1767(98)00004-2 *Tirnaz, S., & Haddad Narafshan, M. (2020). Promoting intercultural sensitivity and classroom climate in EFL classrooms: The use of intercultural TV ad- vertisements. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 25. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.lcsi.2018.10.001 Tolosa, C., Biebricher, C., East, M., & Howard, J. (2018). Intercultural language teaching as a catalyst for teacher inquiry. Teaching and Teacher Education, 70, 227-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.11.027/ Tompkins, A., Cook, T., Miller, E., & LePeau, L. A. (2017). Gender influences on students’ study abroad participation and intercultural competence. Jour- nal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 54(2), 204-2016. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/19496591.2017.1284671 Tosuncuoglu, I. (2019). Intercultural communicative competence awareness of Turkish students and instructors at university level. International Journal of Higher Education, 8(1), 44-54. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v8n1p44 *Tran, T. Q., & Duong, T. M. (2018). The effectiveness of the intercultural lan- guage communicative teaching model for EFL learners. Asian-Pacific Jour- nal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 3(1), 6-17. https://doi.org/ 10.1186/s40862-018-0048-0 *Truong, L. B., & Tran, L. T. (2014). Students’ intercultural development through language learning in Vietnamese tertiary education: A case study on the use of film as an innovative approach. Language and Intercultural Communica- tion, 14(2), 207-225. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2013.849717 *Tudini, V. (2007). Negotiation and intercultural learning in Italian native speaker chat rooms. Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 577-601. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00624.x Zia Tajeddin, Neda Khanlarzadeh, Hessameddin Ghanbar 300 Van der Kroon, L., Jauregi, K., & ten Thije, J. D. (2015). Telecollaboration in foreign language curricula. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 5(3), 20-41. https://10.4018/ijcallt.2015070102 Vande Berg, M., Connor-Linton, J., & Paige, M. P. (2009). The Georgetown con- sortium project: Interventions for student learning abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 18, 1-75. https://doi.org/10.36 366/frontiers.v18i1.251 Vandergrift, L., & Baker, S. (2015). Learner variables in second language listening comprehension: An exploratory path analysis. Language Learning, 65(2), 390-416. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12105 Vuksanovic, J. (2018). ESL Learners’ intercultural competence, L2 attitudes and WEB 2.0 use in American culture. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 46. http://www.immi.se/intercultural/past-issues.html Wagner, M., & Byram, M. (2017). Intercultural citizenship. In Y. Y. Kim (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of intercultural communication (pp. 1-6). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783665.ieicc0043 Wagner, M., Perugini, D. C., & Byram, M. (Eds.). (2017). Teaching intercultural competence across the age range: From theory to practice. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783098910 *Wang, J., Zou, B., Wang, D., & Xing, M. (2013). Students’ perception of a wiki plat- form and the impact of wiki engagement on intercultural communication. System, 41(2), 245-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.04.004 *Wang, Y., & Kulich, S. J. (2015). Does context count? Developing and assessing intercultural competence through an interview-and model-based domes- tic course design in China. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 48, 38-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.03.013 *Watson, J. R., & Wolfel, R. L. (2015). The intersection of language and culture in study abroad: Assessment and analysis of study abroad outcomes. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 25(1), 57-72. https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v25i1.345 Westrick, J. (2004). The influence of service-learning on intercultural sensitivity: A quantitative study. Journal of Research in International Education, 3(3), 277-299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475240904047356 Yashima, T., Nishida, R., & Mizumoto, A. (2017). Influence of learner beliefs and gender on the motivating power of L2 selves. Modern Language Journal, 101(4), 691-711. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12430 *Yildiz, S. (2009). Social presence in the web-based classroom: Implications for intercultural communication. Journal of Studies in International Educa- tion, 13(1), 46-65. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315308317654 Learner variables in the development of intercultural competence: A synthesis of home and study . . . 301 Young, T. J., & Sachdev, I. (2011). Intercultural communicative competence: Ex- ploring English language teachers’ beliefs and practices. Language Aware- ness, 20(2), 81-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2010.540328 *Yu, Q., & Van Maele, J. (2018). Fostering intercultural awareness in a Chinese English reading class. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 41(3), 357- 375. https://doi.org/10.1515/cjal-2018-0027 Zarate, G., Gohard-Radenkovic, A., Lussier, D., & Penz, H. (2004). Cultural medi- ation in language learning and teaching. Council of Europe Publishing. *Zhang, L. (2020). Developing students’ intercultural competence through authen- tic video in language education. Journal of Intercultural Communication Re- search, 49(4), 330-345. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2020.1785528 Zhang, X., & Zhou, M. (2019). Interventions to promote learners’ intercultural competence: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Intercultural Rela- tions, 71, 31-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2019.04.006