aceModerate evidence
Published recordEducationGood Space
More
Emerging Technology-Supported Intercultural Learning for Cognitive, Attitudinal, and Behavioral Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Three-Level Meta-Analysis
- Truvace record
- TRV-2026-2708raw data (JSON)
- Version
- v1Published
- First published
- Evidence type
- Systematic review or meta-analysis
- Sources
- 1 sourcePeer-reviewed
- sha256
- ffbeb92ed4ed…check it
Emerging technologies are increasingly used to support intercultural learning, yet evidence on the distinct effects of artificial intelligence (AI), augmented reality (AR), and virtual reality (VR) remains limited. This systematic review and three-level meta-analysis synthesized 17 studies published from 2020 to July 2026 (77 effect sizes) to examine cognitive, attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes. The overall effect was large and significant (Hedges’ g = 0.965, 95% CI [0.580, 1.350], p < .001), although heterog…
The gain
In a meta-analysis of nine controlled studies (43 effect sizes), learners taught intercultural skills with AI tools such as chatbots and adaptive systems scored higher than comparison groups, with a pooled effect of g = 1.150 (95% CI 0.744 to 1.555).
What this doesn’t fix
Effects varied widely between studies (the AI prediction interval was about -0.29 to 2.59), the review covers only 17 studies, all randomized studies had some risk-of-bias concerns, and the moderator comparisons were exploratory with uneven groups.
Sources
1 on file- Journal of Intelligencedoi:10.3390/jintelligence14100265
What the review found when it combined the studies
These are the review’s own pooled results, copied from its abstract. Truvace did not recalculate them.
Intercultural learning outcomes among adult learners with emerging technology compared with control conditions
Hedges' g 0.758 (95% CI 0.469 to 1.047)
15 studies · search to July 2026
The review’s own words
Adult learners were used as the reference group and showed a positive estimated effect, g = 0.758, 95% CI [0.469, 1.047].
Cognitive intercultural learning outcomes with emerging technology compared with control conditions
Hedges' g 0.892 (95% CI 0.469 to 1.315)
14 studies · search to July 2026
The review’s own words
The cognitive reference group showed a significant positive effect, g = 0.892, 95% CI [0.469, 1.315], p < .001.
Intercultural learning outcomes with AI-, AR- or VR-supported interventions compared with control conditions
Hedges' g 0.965 (95% CI 0.580 to 1.350)
17 studies · search to July 2026
The review’s own words
The pooled effect was statistically significant, g = 0.965, 95% CI [0.580, 1.350], t (76) = 4.997, p < .001.
Difference in intercultural learning effect between virtual reality and augmented reality interventions
Beta (difference in Hedges' g) −1.481 (95% CI −2.681 to −0.280)
search to July 2026
The review’s own words
Compared with AR, VR-based interventions showed a significantly smaller estimated effect, β = −1.481, 95% CI [−2.681, −0.280], p = .017.
Intercultural learning outcomes with AI-supported interventions compared with control conditions
Hedges' g 1.150 (95% CI 0.744 to 1.555)
search to July 2026
The review’s own words
AI-supported interventions showed a significant positive effect, g = 1.150, 95% CI [0.744, 1.555], p < .001.
Intercultural learning outcomes with augmented reality interventions (reference group in AR vs VR comparison)
Hedges' g 1.856 (95% CI 0.820 to 2.893)
search to July 2026
The review’s own words
AR was used as the reference group and showed a positive estimated effect, g = 1.856, 95% CI [0.820, 2.893], p < .001.
Intercultural learning outcomes in large-sample studies with emerging technology compared with control conditions
Hedges' g 1.575 (95% CI 1.029 to 2.121)
search to July 2026
The review’s own words
This group showed a significant positive effect, g = 1.575, 95% CI [1.029, 2.121], p < .001.
Code checks every number above against the review’s text before it is shown. The short labels are an AI model’s reading of that text, so the review’s own sentence sits under each one. A pooled figure is only as strong as the studies behind it. How Truvace uses pooled results
Cite this record
v1Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-2708, v1: “Emerging Technology-Supported Intercultural Learning for Cognitive, Attitudinal, and Behavioral Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Three-Level Meta-Analysis.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2708 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 ffbeb92ed4eda0fd…
Change history
1 versionEvery change made to this record since it was first published, and why. Nothing has changed since it went up.
Certified into the record
Check this record hasn’t been altered
How to check it yourself, without trusting this page
Download any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-2708 and hash its canonical field yourself, for example with shasum -a 256. You should get its content_hash. Each version’s text also ends with prev:and the hash of the version before it (version 1 points to 64 zeros). If anyone had changed a single character of any version after it was saved, those hashes wouldn’t line up.