2.1. An Overview of the SDGs and Their Educational Integration

The SDGs were adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2015 and consist of 17 goals and 169 specific targets designed to achieve sustainable development, which meets present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (UN, 2015). These goals are: No Poverty (Goal 1), Zero Hunger (Goal 2), Good Health and Well-Being (Goal 3), Quality Education (Goal 4), Gender Equality (Goal 5), Clean Water and Sanitation (Goal 6), Affordable and Clean Energy (Goal 7), Decent Work and Economic Growth (Goal 8), Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure (Goal 9), Reduced Inequalities (Goal 10), Sustainable Cities and Communities (Goal 11), Responsible Consumption and Production (Goal 12), Climate Action (Goal 13), Life Below Water (Goal 14), Life on Land (Goal 15), Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions (Goal 16), and Partnerships for the Goals (Goal 17). These goals can be broadly categorized into three dimensions: social, environmental, and economic. Social goals (i.e., Goals 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 16) focus on improving human well-being; environmental goals (Goals 12, 13, 14, 15) aim to protect Earth’s ecosystems; and economic goals (Goals 8, 9, and 10) seek to promote sustainable economic growth (Mangukiya & Sklarlew, 2023).

The comprehensible and universal nature of the SDGs requires a collective effort from the global community, highlighting the importance of each individual to become an active, responsible and collaborative global citizen (Barber, 2023). That is, as a global citizen, it is crucial to develop the necessary competences to deal with urgent global issues and challenges to build a more sustainable future together. This is where the significance of education lies (Kim, 2018). In particular, SDG 4 aims to ”ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all” (UN, 2020). Target 4.7 of SDG 4 is about ”education for sustainable development (ESD)” to empower learners with the necessary competences to pursue sustainability with specified learning objectives in different aspects such as cognitive, social-emotional, and behavioral abilities (UNESCO, 2017). Cognitive development involves enhancing knowledge and critical thinking skills regarding global issues, while social-emotional growth focuses on cultivating a sense of shared humanity and appreciation for diversity; additionally, behavioral engagement encourages individuals to take responsible actions at local, national, and global levels to contribute to a more peaceful and sustainable world (UNESCO, 2015). This comprehensive nature of ESD emphasizes that education should be approached in multifaceted ways, aiming to develop learners’ knowledge, values, and practical skills so that they are empowered to address global challenges and promote sustainability.

Higher education institutions play a crucial role in shaping the minds and behaviors of future leaders and professionals, guiding them to contribute to a more sustainable and equitable society (Goulah & Katunich, 2020). Accordingly, integrating sustainability into university education is considered essential for fostering students’ sustainable mindsets and preparing them to be active global citizens. Korean universities have a profound responsibility to take on this role, given the educational context where secondary education primarily focuses on preparing students for college entrance (Kim, 2018).

General education courses are often considered more effective than major-specific courses in fostering the integration of the SDGs because they offer an interdisciplinary platform, bringing together students from diverse academic backgrounds (Kim, 2018). This diversity facilitates the exchange of different perspectives and fosters critical thinking, cross-disciplinary connections, and global awareness―skills that will facilitate addressing the multifaceted nature of the SDGs. In line with this, recent efforts have been made to incorporate sustainability into the general education curriculum at Korean universities.

The literature supports the idea that integrating the SDGs into curriculum can significantly enhance students’ awareness of global issues and encourage their critical thinking and responsible actions. For instance, Kim (2018) investigated the effectiveness of a mandatory general education course titled Global Citizenship Education and Leadership in fostering the competencies necessary for global citizenship as part of achieving the SDGs. Through focus group interviews with 16 students who took the course, Kim found that it was an effective educational approach that contributed to the overarching goals of higher education in advancing the SDGs. The course equipped future leaders with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to drive individual actions and make positive changes in global issues. To further enhance these competences, Kim suggested that such courses be linked with other regular courses and/or non-curricular courses.

Similarly, Jeong et al. (2018) highlighted the role of pedagogical approaches in fostering students’ understanding of global issues. In their case study, they described how a general education course titled Global Citizenship Education was designed to enhance students’ engagement with global challenges and examined students’ perceptions of the course. The course utilized transformative teaching methods such as flipped learning, discussions, presentations, and collaborative problem-solving projects to encourage students’ active participation both in and outside of class. The emphasis on student engagement through participatory activities, rather than traditional lecture formats led to high student satisfaction, particularly with group discussions. Based on these findings, the researchers argued that teaching approaches such as discussion are effective in enhancing the critical thinking skills necessary to address complex global issues.

As these examples demonstrate, the growing body of research supports the view that education, especially higher education, can play a vital role in achieving the SDGs. By incorporating transformative and innovative teaching approaches, the integration of the SDGs into higher education continues to hold significant potential for fostering global citizenship and addressing the world’s most pressing challenges.

2.2. SDGs in English Language Education

It is widely acknowledged that English language classes offer a great opportunity to integrate the SDGs (e.g., Barber, 2023; Xu, 2024) because they provide meaningful real-world contexts that engage students in learning in a way that is both practical and relevant. When SDG- related activities are woven into language lessons, students not only improve their English but also gain valuable knowledge and skills that can help advance the SDGs. These activities encourage students to reflect on how their actions affect the world and inspire them to become active, responsible global citizens (Bok & Cho, 2019). In this way, students are empowered to play a part in promoting sustainability and driving positive changes.

Building on this recognition, Astawa et al. (2024) emphasize the attention given to integrating the SDGs into language learning. Their review of research conducted from 2018 to 2022 shows that the SDGs have been increasingly integrated into the EFL context across various countries and years. They identify two primary roles of the SDGs in EFL: fostering sustainable development competence by helping students gain knowledge about global issues and using the SDGs as English learning materials, such as discussion or project topics. All the studies they reviewed demonstrated a positive effect on students’ linguistic abilities as well as their understanding of global issues. These findings reinforce the idea that integrating the SDGs into language learning engages students meaningfully and helps them develop as global citizens.

In a similar vein, Cordova (2024) explored the potential for integrating the SDGs into English curriculum by examining the experiences of pre-service teachers who incorporated them into English and literature instruction at a teacher education institution in the Philippines. These teachers, as part of their teaching practice, designed interdisciplinary lessons that encouraged students to engage with urgent global issues and apply practical solutions to their everyday lives. While the pre-service teachers faced challenges in aligning the SDGs with the content of their lessons and creating interdisciplinary plans, they discovered that their students felt empowered by taking ownership of global issues. Rather than simply learning subject matter, students were encouraged to solve problems and take actions. Cordova’s findings highlight that integrating the SDGs into English curriculum can contribute to promoting sustainability and cultivating a sense of global citizenship.

This trend is also evident in the context of higher education in Korea, where, despite limited research, some studies have begun to explore the integration of the SDGs into English language classrooms. One notable example is Oh (2021), who developed a general English curriculum that addressed various global issues through critical media literacy activities. As students analyzed authentic media materials such as CNN news articles and engaged in self-reflection, they improved not only their English proficiency but also their understanding of global citizenship. Additionally, Oh’s curriculum allowed students to utilize technology such as machine translation tools in order to make global issues more accessible to learners with varying levels of English proficiency. According to Oh, this approach further empowered students to participate meaningfully in global discussions and actions.

While Oh (2021) focused on designing a curriculum based on the SDGs to meet the growing need for global citizenship, Park and Min (2024) investigated how students in college English classes perceived the effectiveness of SDG-related content and activities. In particular, they explored the impact of incorporating the SDGs on students’ awareness of global citizenship and their attitudes toward learning English. The findings revealed that incorporating the SDGs into university English classes significantly enhanced students’ competencies and motivation to engage as global citizens. Surveys and interviews indicated a noticeable improvement in students’ attitudes toward global citizenship and their interest in English learning. These findings confirmed that the SDGs are an effective means of promoting both language proficiency and global citizenship. Park and Min concluded that integrating the SDGs into language education can provide a holistic and transformative learning experience for students.

Despite the growing recognition of the potential benefits of integrating the SDGs into English education, there is a lacuna in research, particularly in the context of English academic writing classes within general English programs at Korean universities. Academic writing, which is one of the key components of many general English curricula, provides students with opportunities to engage with SDG-related content. However, few studies have examined how the SDGs can be effectively incorporated into Korean higher education settings, especially in language courses focused on academic writing.

This research gap calls for further investigation into the integration of the SDGs into academic writing courses at the tertiary level in Korea. By examining diverse approaches, this study aims to contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of how the SDGs can be utilized to enhance both language proficiency and global citizenship. Specifically, the findings from this study will shed light on the best practices for embedding the SDGs in academic writing curricula and provide language educators with valuable insights on how to foster both academic and global competencies in their students.

3.1. Research Context

Before the semester began, the researchers discussed the possibility of integrating the SDGs into the English curriculum to increase students’ awareness of social and global issues and to foster more empathetic attitudes toward the world as they learn English. This approach aimed to ensure that students would not only learn English as an international language but also develop their sense of global citizenship (UNESCO, 2017). Additionally, by incorporating real-world contexts, the researchers hoped to make students’ learning of English academic writing more meaningful and engaging (Dornyei, 2001).

One of the researchers taught mandatory General English classes at a university in Korea, focusing on English academic writing. The structure of the class is summarized in Table 1. The classes met twice a week for 15 weeks during the spring semester of 2024 for one and a half hours each session. The first three units of the main textbook cover paragraph writing, while the remaining four focus on essay writing. The types of writing introduced included comparison, classification, cause-effect, and problem-solution.

<Table 1>

Weekly plan of the SDG-Focused English academic writing class

With these objectives in mind, students were first introduced to the SDGs in Week 4, following an initial three-week period focused on foundational paragraph- writing skills. The instructor provided an overview of the SDGs, covering their background and history and instructed the students to sdgs.un.org for further reference. Students were then organized into groups of four or five based on their SDG topic of interest. For homework, students were assigned to identify a specific issue related to their group’s chosen goal and research background information to prepare for a group discussion. During the next class, students participated in group discussions to share background information about their selected issues and completed KWL (Know, Want to Know, and Learned) worksheets. These classroom activities were designed to enhance students’ motivation to explore the SDGs independently and broaden their perspectives by learning from what their group members discovered about their issues. In Weeks 5 and 6, students used their selected SDG issue as the basis for their paragraph writing, choosing a paragraph type from among the classification, comparison, cause-effect, or problem-solution formats and developing a draft. In Week 7, students participated in one-on-one feedback sessions with the instructor to revise and finalize their paragraph writing for the midterm exam.

During the second half of the semester, students wrote essays using four different essay formats (i.e., classification, comparison, cause-effect, and problem-solution), introduced in consecutive order. The class spent about two weeks covering each unit to learn how to write each type of essay. For each unit, students followed a similar process to the one they had practiced for paragraph writing: selecting an SDG-related issue, researching it, drafting an essay, receiving feedback, and then revising and finalizing their work. When moving from one type of essay to another, students were allowed to change their writing topics as they wished. The first three essay types (i.e., classification, comparison, and cause-effect) were designed to help students gain a better understanding of their chosen topics by explaining categories, similarities or differences, and relationships. The problem-solution essay type, on the other hand, was intended to engage students in actively identifying global or local issues and proposing solutions to them.

3.2. Data Collection

The data for the study were collected through a survey questionnaire. The survey consisted of 22 questions in total: four questions about student background information (i.e., school year, gender, field of study, and self-reported English proficiency level) and 18 main questions examining students’ responses to and perceptions of SDG integration into English academic writing classes. Specifically, the main questions were grouped into three categories (see Appendix). The first category, which included five questions, focused on students’ engagement and challenges with SDG-integrated English writing activities. The second category, consisting of eight questions, centered on students’ perceptions of the influence of these writing activities on their SDG learning in both cognitive domains (i.e., knowledge, understanding, awareness, and interest in learning about the SDGs) and social-emotional domains (i.e., responsibility, collaboration, social norms, and empathy). These two domains align with the three areas of learning objectives―cognitive, social-emotional, and behavioral―proposed by UNESCO (2017) for SDG- related education. However, the behavioral learning domain was not examined as it was unrelated to the learning objectives of the writing classes targeted in this study. The final category, which included five questions, explored students’ perceptions of the impact of SDG integration on their learning about English academic writing, particularly in the areas of interest, participation, understanding of the subject, and appropriateness.

The survey questionnaire, created as a Google Form, was distributed both offline and online to students enrolled in General English classes taught by one of the researchers in the study. Participation in the survey was anonymous and voluntary. In the classroom setting, a QR code linking to the survey was shared so that students could participate using their smartphones. While students completed the survey in class, the instructor remained outside the classroom for about 10 minutes to ensure that they did not feel pressured to respond. For students who missed completing the survey during class, a link was posted on a class’s Learning Management System (LMS) so they could participate at a convenient time.

After the data were collected, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to evaluate the internal consistency of the survey questionnaire. The items addressing students’ perceptions of the impact of SDG-related writing activities on their SDG learning demonstrated a high level of internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.85 for the cognitive domain and 0.90 for the social-emotional domain. Similarly, the items assessing students’ learning of English academic writing showed good reliability, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.83.

Out of 85 students from three General English classes, 47 participated in the survey. All were first-year university students except one third-year student. Nineteen (40.4%) participants were male, and 28 (59.6%) were female. Regarding their field of study, 15 (31.9%) students were in social sciences, followed by 13 (27.7%) in humanities, 11 (23.4%) in engineering, six (12.8%) in business, one (2.1%) in linguistics, and one (2.1%) in education. Many of the students (70.2%) self-reported their English proficiency as basic, with eight (17%) at A1 and 25 (53.2%) at A2 on the CEFR scale. The remaining students reported themselves as dependent or proficient users, with 13 (27.7%) at B1 and one (2.1%) at C1.

3.3. Data Analysis

The survey consisted of a mix of 5-point Likert scale questions, multiple-choice questions allowing multiple answers, and open-ended questions. For the data from the Likert and multiple-choice questions, descriptive statistics were used. The percentage of each selected option was calculated and displayed through Google Form, providing a clear understanding of the distribution of responses to each item. For the open-ended questions, thematic analysis was conducted. As Braun and Clarke (2006) suggest, the analysis began with multiple readings of the data, accompanied by notes and comments, which helped the researchers gain a comprehensive understanding of the responses in context. During this repetitive reading process, codes were created and refined to capture the key ideas in the responses. Similar codes were grouped into broader themes, and the most common themes were identified based on frequency counts.

4.1. Students’ Engagement and Challenges with SDG-Integrated Writing Activities

The first section of the findings examines how students engaged with SDG-integrated writing activities in class and the challenges they encountered during the process. Survey Question 1 asked about SDG(s) that students selected as their writing topics among the 17 goals. The responses showed that 78.7% of students selected only a single goal and used it as their writing topic throughout the semester, 19.1% chose two goals, and 2.1% chose three. Social goals were most popular, with 59.6% of students selecting them, followed by environmental goals (53.2%) and economic goals (12.8%).

Among the 17 individual SDGs, Climate Action (Goal 13) was the most frequently chosen, with 44.7% of students selecting it, followed by No Poverty (Goal 1) at 23.4%, Quality Education (Goal 4) at 12.8% and Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure (Goal 9) at 12.8%. These four goals accounted for about three-quarters of the students’ choices. These findings indicate that students tended to focus on a limited number of goals as writing topics when left to their discretion. In addition, their selections were mostly concentrated on social or environmental goals across the three goal categories, with choices unevenly distributed even within each category (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

Distribution of the goals selected by students

The next survey question inquired about students’ reasons for their goal choices. About half of the students cited personal familiarity with the goals (48.9%) and/or their personal interest (46.8%). Some students (25.5%) mentioned that the widespread recognition of the goals also influenced their choices. However, students’ choices did not appear to be significantly influenced by the writing activities with 23.4% choosing ease of writing and 17% selecting ease of researching as reasons. Only 14.9% of students were influenced by the urgency and seriousness of the goals. No other reasons were mentioned beyond the given options.

Students were also asked to choose among five given class activities that were helpful to complete SDG-related writing in Survey Question 3. The most chosen activity was researching SDGs individually (76.6%), followed by writing an academic text in English (44.7%), instructor’s feedback on writing (34%), group discussion of SDGs with classmates during class (27.7%), and instructor’s explanation of SDGs (17%). One student selected the option that these activities were not helpful to complete his/her work.

Question 4 examined the reasons for choosing a particular activity as helpful, and 25 students left their comments. Table 2 summarizes these reasons with examples of their comments. Students’ responses suggested that each activity played a unique role in the process of SDG-focused writing. For example, the individual researching process was viewed as beneficial because it helped students gain a deeper understanding of their topics and enhance their knowledge. Writing paragraphs or essays in their own words, following formats such as classification, comparison, cause-effect, and problem solution, was also cited as advantageous in helping students understand topics ”more clearly.” Additionally, the instructor’s feedback on writing was perceived as a guiding force, helping students stay on track with their SDG topics and recognize what they were missing in their writing. Group discussions about their SDG topics were valuable in gaining new insights and information from classmates who offered different perspectives. In contrast to the other activities, the instructors’ explanations of SDGs in class were not seen as particularly helpful, but some students still found value in grasping the concept of SDGs and understanding how to use them as writing topics.

<Table 2>

Reasons for selecting particular activities as helpful

In response to Question 5, which asked about difficulties or challenges students faced while completing SDG- focused writing, three main issues emerged, as shown in Table 3. The most frequently mentioned challenge was using English as a medium of writing. Since English is a foreign language for these students, they found it more difficult to express their thoughts in English than in their native language, Korean. This challenge was particularly evident when they worked on their first drafts in class, as they were instructed not to use translation apps or conversational AI tools like ChatGPT (although these were allowed during revisions). Under these restrictions, students appeared to struggle more with completing SDG-focused writing. Secondly, students considered delivering their message in the form of academic writing to be one of the main challenges. They were expected to construct arguments based on evidence and logical reasoning, but many students were unfamiliar with this process. In particular, they found it difficult to locate resources to support their ideas and opinions. Lastly, selecting a specific SDG as a writing topic proved challenging. For some students, this was due to a lack of prior interest in or familiarity with the SDGs before the course. Others struggled to narrow down a topic, given the broad range of SDGs. Even after choosing an SDG, they still needed to identify a specific issue within it, which made selecting an appropriate writing topic time-consuming. Due to this difficulty, one student mentioned that he/she ended up choosing a topic that ”just popped into” his/her mind rather than through a thorough research process.

<Table 3>

Challenges encountered in the English writing process focused on SDGs

4.2. Students’ Views on SDG Learning through Academic Writing Activities

The second set of survey questions centered on students’ perceptions of whether academic writing activities contributed to their learning about the SDGs from the cognitive and social-emotional perspectives. Questions 6 through 9 specifically addressed students’ perceived improvement in cognitive aspects such as their knowledge, understanding, awareness, and interest in learning about the SDGs. As shown in Table 4, most students agreed (59.6%) or strongly agreed (23.4%) that they gained more knowledge about the SDGs through the academic writing process. The process also helped them better understand the SDGs, with 61.7% agreeing and 21.3% strongly agreeing, and become more aware of the SDGs while writing, with 53.2% agreeing and 23.4% strongly agreeing. However, the increase in their interest in the SDGs was not as significant as the gains in knowledge, understanding, and awareness; about half of the students (55.3%) reported becoming more interested in learning about them.

<Table 4>

Students’ perceptions of learning about the SDGs through SDG writing activities: Cognitive aspects

Questions 10 to 13 explored whether students experienced social-emotional development related to the SDGs through the writing activities, particularly in areas such as responsibility, collaboration, understanding of their individual roles in achieving the SDGs, and empathy toward local and global issues. Table 5 illustrates students’ general recognition of the positive impact of the writing process on their social-emotional growth. However, their perceived enhancement was not as strong as their cognitive gains, except for empathy for global and local issues, with 80.8% expressing a positive impact, including 57.4% indicating agreement and 23.4% strong agreement.

<Table 5>

Students’ perceptions of learning about the SDGs through SDG writing activities: Social-emotional aspects

4.3. Students’ Views on Learning Academic Writing While Engaging with SDG Topics

The third set of survey questions explored how much using SDGs as writing topics contributed to students’ learning of English academic writing (see Table 6). In response to Question 14, which focused on whether this approach increased their interest in learning English academic writing, about half of the students (55.3%) indicated increased interest, with 40.4% agreeing and 14.9% strongly agreeing. However, a considerable portion of students (44.6%) were still uncertain (31.9%) or responded negatively (12.7%). The vast majority of students agreed (48.9%) or strongly agreed (23.4%) that SDG-focused writing activities encouraged them to participate more in their English writing classes in Question 15. Additionally, many students agreed (57.4%) or strongly agreed (19.1%) that these activities helped them better understand how to write an academic text in Question 16. Overall, the students perceived that the writing activities centered around SDG topics contributed to their class participation and understanding of how to write, but not as much to their interest in writing.

<Table 6>

Students’ views on learning of English academic writing through SDG topics

Question 17 sought students’ thoughts on the appropriateness of incorporating the SDGs into their English academic writing classes. A significant majority of students agreed (63.8%) or strongly agreed (23.4%) that it was appropriate, while only 4.3% responded negatively. Students were asked to explain the reasons behind their choices in Question 18, and 24 students provided comments. Table 7 summarizes the reasons why they considered the integration of the SDGs appropriate for English academic writing classes. The most frequently mentioned reasons were related to their content as writing topics and their roles in promoting English learning.

<Table 7>

Reasons for the appropriateness of integrating the SDGs into the English academic writing class

Students recognized the SDGs as inherently appropriate topics for a writing class due to their global scope, universality, significance, relevance to everyday life, and contemporary appeal. Students appeared to understand that the SDGs address international challenges faced by all humankind, regardless of where they live, and that these challenges are causing serious problems not only for global communities but also for individuals. Additionally, the SDGs were perceived not as outdated but as ”trendy” topics that are currently receiving significant attention. For these reasons, students regarded the SDGs as topics worth writing about and embraced them ”without resistance.”

Students also recognized the appropriateness of the SDGs in promoting English language learning, including English writing. Some students noted that they used English more frequently because the SDGs are ”global issues,” making it natural to engage with English while working on these topics. One student remarked that as the SDGs address current issues, he or she had the opportunity to learn ”contemporary English.” Students also found the SDGs to be suitable as writing topics for English academic writing because their content was neither too advanced nor too simple. Furthermore, due to the abundance of materials available on the SDGs, they found accessing resources to be relatively easy.

Although most students believed that the SDGs are suitable for English writing classes, two students expressed concerns about their use. One concern was that the SDGs were not sufficiently motivational. As one student noted, ”I found the SDGs to be good in terms of content, but they were not engaging enough, making it challenging to stay motivated.” This observation is in line with the response to Question 14, where students’ agreement with the SDGs’ role in developing students’ interest in English writing classes was relatively low. The other concern was related to the nature of the SDG’s content. One student remarked, ”I found it disappointing that the SDGs are not controversial topics. I believe writing about controversial topics would be more helpful.” This student felt that limiting writing topics to the SDGs prevented him or her from exploring controversial issues in writing.