Students’ perspectives of sustainable development goals in a Japanese higher education institute

Abstract

Purpose

As UN’s sustainable development goals (SDGs) are integrated across Asia-Pacific Higher Education Institutes (HEIs), the purpose of this descriptive and exploratory study is to investigate undergraduates’ own self-stated commitment to the SDGs and their perceived feasibility by the 2030 target.

Design/methodology/approach

A mixed-methodology approach covered quantitative and qualitative approaches facilitated by purposive selection of an Asia-Pacific HEI via a Japanese liberal arts college where a questionnaire survey was administered in Autumn 2021. Responses were monitored from freshmen students in twin courses within the same major (introduction to “Environment” and “Development” studies, respectively; n = 177) that both integrated SDGs within their respective curricula.

Findings

Students in both classes rated the SDGs as a useful learning tool but were sceptical of their feasibility by 2030. A self-stated commitment was high, especially among environment studies students. Multiple regression was run to predict SDGs commitment from gender, major, perceived SDGs’ usefulness and feasibility. These variables partially predicted SDGs commitment but only gender and major variables added statistical significance. Moreover, the same variables were less equivocal in terms of predicting the self-stated belief that the SDGs could be achieved by 2030.

Practical implications

The findings can inform instructors of students’ perceptions towards SDGs. Significant differences raise academic and applied discussion points, such as how to engage male students, for example, by setting up sustainability “business case” practicums.

Originality/value

As global HEIs grapple with effective ways to vertically integrate SDGs into a university’s curriculum, students’ opinions are often underrepresented. This paper’s originality and value address these gaps by exploring a holistic student-centric perspective on SDGs in the context of commitment. This paper also has implications for more effective cross-curricula integration of the SDGs.

Citation

Jones, T.E., Mack, L. and Gómez, O.A. (2024), "Students’ perspectives of sustainable development goals in a Japanese higher education institute", International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 182-201. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-12-2022-0380

Introduction

In 2020, the UN launched its Decade of Action (UN, 2020) campaign aimed at ramping up progress on the sustainable development goals (SDGs) in time to meet the 2030 target. However, many of the metrics suggest that countries are not currently on track to achieve most SDGs (Guterres and Liu, 2020). Increasingly urgent efforts have thus been made to integrate SDGs in higher educational institutions (HEI) curricula more effectively at all levels, with special consideration of how students’ commitment and behaviour affect the environment and society (Aleixo et al., 2021). As the economical, societal and environmental challenges accumulate, HEI around the world are tasked with preparing the next generations of students to respond with SDG-relevant solutions. Despite the drive for integration of the UN’s SDGs in Asia-Pacific HEIs, not much research exists on undergraduates’ self-stated commitment to the SDGs and their feasibility by 2030.

Sustainability is increasingly incorporated into HEIs, and numerous studies have investigated the predictors among individual students (Rodríguez-Barreiro et al., 2013; Vicente-Molina et al., 2013). However, the SDGs’ ability to influence students’ views and change behaviours remains untested. In particular, not much empirical evidence exists that monitors “student-centric” perspectives of SDGs and their feasibility in the context of universities’ curricula. Although today’s undergraduates are fundamental to achieving the SDGs by 2030, the pre-dispositions of current cohorts of students towards sustainability is not well-understood, nor how they perceive the feasibility of achieving the 17 goals and 169 targets. This lack of applied research belies the theoretical calls for a more “student-centric” approach, despite the fact that monitoring students’ own organic perspectives of SDGs is said to be essential to encourage self-reliance and self-direction via student-led projects and activities in higher education (Jodoin, 2020). A heightened emphasis on student perceptions is fundamental to Fokdal et al.’s (2019, p. 2) definition of a “learner-centered and action-oriented” approach as an efficient means of preparing future generations to act as “change agents”, as today’s students will be the primary influencers and decision makers in the future.

A better understanding students’ attitudes and beliefs towards SDGs can facilitate plans to holistically integrate education for sustainable development (ESD) initiatives. ESD is an established research field with considerable applied and academic achievements to date (Grosseck et al., 2019; Hallinger and Chatpinyakoop, 2019). Nonetheless, some gaps in the literature remain. For example, prior research has investigated individual preferences and pre-dispositions outside the HEI context in which the SDGs are actively disseminated. The link is not well-understood between students’ demographics and on-campus study of an environment-related major or specific courses or off-campus behaviour and individual lifestyle choices (Ting and Cheng, 2017). Additionally, while there have been many studies examining students’ perceptions of sustainable development (SD) in Portugal (Aleixo et al., 2021; Cotton et al., 2016), Spain (García-González et al., 2020; Vargas-Callejas et al., 2018), Brazil, United Arab Emirates (Chuvieco et al., 2018), Australia (Hay et al., 2019), the UK (Chaplin and Wyton, 2014; Cotton et al., 2016), Romania (Gratiela and Saracli, 2019) and Iran (Bahaee et al., 2014), densely populated parts of the planet, such as Asia have attracted proportionally less research to date despite their importance (Jodoin, 2020).

This paper’s originality thus derives from holistic reporting of self-stated commitment to the SDGs in two parallel courses, combined with curriculum integration in a case study from an Asia-Pacific HEI. Following on from Lambrechts et al.’s (2018) and Aleixo et al.’s (2021) research, we examine the perceptions and attitudes of Japanese university students towards SDGs. To comprehensively gauge behavioural intentions, individual attitudes should be investigated (Ghazali et al., 2019). This paper, therefore, aims to tackle the aforementioned gaps and contribute to the ongoing efforts to find evidence of a relationship between Japanese students’ SDGs commitment via three research questions:

RQ1.

Which demographic factors could predict the student respondents’ SDG perspectives?

RQ2.

Is there a relationship between self-stated commitment and perceived feasibility that SDGs can be achieved by 2030?

RQ3.

What are the implications for integrating SDGs into HEI curriculum based on students’ perspectives?

The paper structure begins with a literature review to outline current ESD practices and policies. We summarize scholarship on students’ perspectives as predictors, especially SDG commitment and perceived feasibility. Next, results are tabulated from a questionnaire survey conducted in the Autumn semester of 2021 in two parallel courses targeting freshmen within the same major field at a Japanese HEI. A mix of closed and open questions captured students’ demographic profile and SDG perception predictors to see if there is a relationship between socio-demographic traits and the perceived feasibility of attaining the SDGs by 2030. Practical implications are presented for HEIs seeking more efficient means of SDG integration.

Literature review

Education for sustainable development and sustainable development goals

Global efforts have been redoubled to actively circulate the SDGs across HEIs by 2030. In the Asia-Pacific region, ESD efforts have advanced in parallel with the SDGs’ dissemination (Ho et al., 2022). The Johannesburg Summit of 2002 focused on the specific role of education systems in supporting, visualizing and incentivizing societal transformation and subsequent mentions of sustainability within HEIs across Asia-Pacific have proliferated (Yencken et al., 2000; Leal Filho et al., 2019). Yet despite the increased promotion of ESD measures across HEI curricula, examples of integrated sustainability practices remain underreported, with substantial discrepancies persisting across different countries and institutional contexts (Grosseck et al., 2019).

Ho et al. (2022) queried the capacity of SDGs as a beacon to light the way for “global citizens”, although an interim Asia-Pacific progress report did suggest signs of progress (Asia and the Pacific SDG progress report, 2021). The same report noted an emphasis on sustainability based on a physical science mindset at the expense of social sciences and the humanities. Within lies a tacit acknowledgement that equivalent contributions to sustainability studies often trail that of specialist engineering schools and thus require urgent attention (Fenner et al., 2005). Expanding the scope of SDGs to broader arenas, such as the liberal arts college used by this study, can, therefore, be seen as a barometer of efforts to disseminate SDGs beyond the realm of environmental experts, dedicated ESD syllabi or faculties of natural science.

As efforts to implement SDGs have intensified, research interest in the pedagogical approach and strategies for integrating sustainability in HEI curriculum is growing, especially the role of instructors (Barth and Rieckmann, 2012); types of integration (Orlovic Lovren et al., 2020); and teaching methodologies (Ceulemans and De Prins, 2010; Cotton and Winter, 2010; Fokdal et al., 2019; Lambrechts et al., 2013). While it is clear that most HEIs have not yet fully integrated SDGs into their curricula and face substantial barriers to do so, Leal Filho et al. (2019) purport that the adoption of SDGs presents a new opportunity to embed sustainability into teaching techniques. Hajer et al. (2015) point out that the SDGs might serve as the blueprint for governmental, business and civil society activity in pursuit of shared and sustained prosperity. Moreover, universities have an obligation to create curricula that promotes student development to nurture active and critical citizens that can contribute to the creation of a sustainable future (Leicht et al., 2018). To nurture alternative viewpoints on environmental issues that connect global concerns and country policies to individual beliefs and behaviour, it is imperative that current HEI models be revised to actively reflect SDGs (Chuvieco et al., 2018). Yet despite such positivist intentions, considerable legwork remains to ensure more curricula comply with sustainability certification and the course or campus-specific context coincides more closely with the SDG targets.

Efforts to integrate sustainable development goals across higher educational institutions curricula

ESD can be integrated vertically through existing HEIs’ curriculum dealing primarily with SDGs or horizontally by integrating the SDGs among the topics covered in regular courses. This distinction reflects Lozano’s (2010) inventory for integrating SD studies into the curricula via including issues within an existing course scaffolding; combining the relevant concepts with conventional content; introducing a new “bespoke” course; or seeking specialization within the framework of each faculty. The latter approach holds the key to the vertical integration of SDGs within a single college or major, with the potential to expand horizontally across other colleges, language classes and student activities to create a truly holistic, campus-wide SDG vision (Watson et al., 2013).

Although SD can clash with conventional educational approaches due to difficulties of inter- or intra- curriculum integration (Johnston, 2013; Jodoin, 2020), efforts to improve horizontal and vertical integration of SDG-related curriculum continue to gain traction in Asian HEI contexts (Leal Fihlo et al., 2021). Based on empirical evidence, each of the strategies proposed by Lozano (2010) faces certain constraints due to the specific institution’s context. In particular, current research is scant on the most effective modes of SDG integration in less specialized HEIs such as liberal arts colleges. This reflects the reality that engineering schools and faculties of natural science have taken the lead in embedding SDGs and sustainability science into their curricula (Fenner et al., 2005; Segalàs et al., 2012).

Theoretical framework on students’ perspectives of sustainable development

Despite numerous studies on university students’ perceptions of SD in various international contexts, few studies have examined Asian students, let alone Japanese perceptions of SDGs. Contemporary university undergraduates certainly seem interested in learning about SDGs (Bahaee et al., 2014; Chuvieco et al., 2018). Aleixo et al.’s (2021) study of three Portuguese HEIs found that most students are aware of and hold positive impressions of SDGs. In Britain, students deemed sustainable living essential, but their knowledge was limited, and a discrepancy emerged between their self-stated values and behaviour (Chaplin and Wyton, 2014). This “value-action gap” ensures students do not always behave in a way that is consistent with their beliefs, hinting at a disconnect between what they know and what they do (Hume, 2010). If environmental education at HEIs is to have a transformational impact on students’ everyday behaviour, this gap must be addressed (Chuvieco, 2018).

Environmental intentions can be also predicted by factors including individual attitudes and socio-demographic variables (e.g. gender and grade) that should both be investigated concurrently (Ghazali et al., 2019). According to Lambrechts et al. (2018), individual traits have a greater influence on attitudes towards sustainability than demographics or educational programmes. Various prior studies have already linked SDGs with “eco-friendly” behaviours via predictors such as socio-demographic variables (including age and gender) together with values, beliefs and social norms (Jansson et al., 2011; Choi et al., 2015). Iranian students’ attitudes and knowledge about SD were correlated with certain demographic variables such as gender, year of study and high school education (Bahaee et al., 2014). More research is needed to connect psychological constructs such as students’ opinions of and commitment to the SDGs with potential predictors, including socio-demographic variables such as gender, grade and major.

• Gender: Four separate studies found that female students are more concerned about sustainability issues (Aleixo et al., 2021; Bahaee et al., 2014; Chaplin and Wyton, 2014; Lozano et al., 2013). These studies found that women often exhibit pro-environmental behaviours; are more keen to study sustainability (Aleixo et al., 2021; Chaplin and Wyton, 2014); and are more knowledgeable about SD issues (Bahaee et al., 2014). However, although O’Shaughnessy and Kennedy (2010) agreed that women exhibit greater environmental concern, they also found that females have lower levels of engagement in environmental practices. In general, the literature agrees that women tend to be more perceptive, empathic and report engaging in SD activities more often than males.

• Major: There were no reported differences in environmental practices between Malaysian students studying business and those with other majors (Tan and Lau, 2009), nor between Malaysian students studying natural sciences over social sciences (Hasan et al., 2015). However, Chuvieco et al.’s (2018) research in three different countries, UK, Brazil and Spain, found that the area of study (such as environmental majors) was strongly correlated with students’ sustainable practices.

• Nationality: An international comparison of students’ attitudes towards SD found that Portuguese students had more favourable opinions on six out of the nine categories compared to students from the UK, reflecting a more optimistic attitude towards energy challenges (Cotton et al., 2016). However, Chuvieco et al.’s (2018) study found that difference in opinions based on nationality (Spain, Brazil and UIEA) were statistically insignificant.

• Year of study: Chuvieco et al.’s (2018) comparison with Spanish, Brazilian and Emirati students revealed that the study field and self-perceived environmental commitment were strongly correlated with students’ sustainable behaviour, the grade or year of study for environmental students was not significant. Conversely, Hay et al. (2019) found certain discernible variations in sustainability-related behaviour between first- and third-semester students, with the latter exhibiting a greater scepticism towards climate change. This finding is consistent with Ozis et al.’s (2022) research that found first-year students to have the highest mean score for favourable attitude towards sustainability.

Research context

Case study site

Few prior studies have delved into sustainability practices in Asia-Pacific, although the region has made significant financial and policy commitments to support the SDGs via ESD (Leal Fihlo et al., 2021). This underrepresentation in the literature helps explain the contradiction in performance evaluation, as mentioned above, in terms of environmental and economic sustainability, with few examples from Japan (Jodoin, 2020). Our study site was thus purposively selected with reference to the target country and to review efforts to foster “global citizens” at an international university using a liberal arts syllabus (Ho et al., 2022). Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University (APU) is a branch of the Ritsumeikan Trust which runs several education institutions. When APU newly opened in April 2000, it bolstered Ritsumeikan’s international credentials by joining a handful of global HEIs in Japan. APU’s prospectus aspires to an “internationalized education”, symbolized by an annual 50:50 intake of domestic and international undergraduates, together with an even mix of foreign and Japanese faculty that propelled APU to a rank of 24th in Japan according to the 2022 Times Higher Education global rankings. Our mixed-method research design included quantitative and qualitative approaches facilitated by the purposive selection of two parallel freshmen courses teaching environment and development (ED) at APU.

Methodology

This study is based on students’ perceptions (c.f. Aleixo et al., 2021; Bahaee et al., 2014; Chaplin and Wyton, 2014; Chuvieco et al., 2018; Cotton et al., 2016; García-González et al., 2020; Lambrechts et al., 2018). An online questionnaire survey was administered at the Japanese liberal arts university in the Autumn semester of 2021 via parallel courses aimed at freshmen within APU’s College of Asia Pacific studies (APS). The instrument was developed based on existing literature reviews (Tilikidou, 2007) that combined demographic variables (age; gender; major, etc.) with attitudes and commitment to the SDGs. Responses from 87 “Development Studies” students and 91 “Environment Studies” students were measured to monitor their attitudes, pro-sustainability orientation, and understanding towards SDGs curriculum. The two courses integrated the SDGs vertically via different pedagogies. Development Studies assigned one SDG to each student group, which had to prepare presentations and individual final reports about their unique, pre-assigned goal and its related targets. In the environment class, the SDGs were introduced broadly and used as an overarching framework to spotlight various conservation issues within an overall context of environmental management. Attention was paid not only to “headline” issues such as SDG 11 (climate action) or SDG 15 (deforestation and biodiversity loss) but also to “everyday” issues such as pollution and solid waste management, with an emphasis placed on sustainable solutions such as recycling or lifestyle change.

The surveys were conducted near the end of both courses, so student respondents had already experienced the bulk of planned engagement with the pedagogical strategies. The online questionnaire tool used a mix of closed and open questions to capture students’ SDGs perceptions (e.g. their initial impressions and evaluation of current SDG progress); and profile (including year/major/gender/language track, etc.). The survey was conducted in Japanese, the predominant language of instruction for both the target courses. Responses to open questions were back-translated into English using Deepl online translation engine and independently verified by translators not affiliated with the research project.

Respondents’ sample description

Table 1 provides descriptive statistics for the respondents in this study. A total of 177 undergraduate students answered the survey. It is noteworthy that of these respondents, there were 110 (62.1%) female participants. This is representative of the college (APS) composition, where the weighting of enrolled students tends to reflect a similar gender proportion.

In total, 158 (90.3%) identified themselves as domestic, with the remainder made up of international students proficient in the Japanese language. The majority (n = 130; 79.8%) were freshmen in their first year of study. In total, 158 (88.8%) were enrolled in the college of APS, known for an emphasis on sociology and humanities in comparison to the management-focused ethos of Asia Pacific management (APM). In total, 65 students (38.5%) had already selected their major to be ED, although 43 (25.4%) were still undecided, reflecting their recently enrolled status.

Findings and discussion

Overall findings revealed that students in both classes appreciated the study of SDGs as an entry point to ED studies. For example, most students reported that their “yarigai” or motivation to contribute to SDGs, had increased somewhat during the course (n = 105; 59%). The majority found SDGs to be “very useful” (n = 101; 57%) or “somewhat useful” (n = 75; 42%) as a learning tool. Environment students were more enthused by the SDGs, with a larger proportion finding them to be a “very useful” learning tool (n = 62; 68%), whereas more development students opted for the moderate “somewhat useful” choice (n = 47; 54%). Table 2 displays the results from an independent samples t-test conducted on the codified medium scores in the two courses. The Levene test showed all four variables to be non-significant, so the t-test results were interpreted based on the assumption of equal variance. Self-reported agreement with four statements was measured using a four-point Likert scale ranging from “0” (“strongly disagree”) to “3” (“strongly agree”). Despite the overarching similarities in the median scores across the two classes, certain significant differences also emerged (Sig. two-tailed). Self-stated SDG commitment was found to be significantly higher among the environment group (p < 0.05), who also agreed that the SDGs in this course had been “a useful learning tool” (p < 0.05).

Regarding the feasibility, findings in both groups revealed scepticism, with most respondents (n = 107; 60%) unsure if the SDGs could be achieved within the 2030 timeframe. Ten students (6%) were convinced that the SDGs could not be achieved, while only eight (5%) were confident that the goals were readily attainable by 2030. Nonetheless, most students claimed some degree of commitment to the SDGs, with only 13 (7%) stating they had “not yet considered” or were “not ready to commit” to the SDGs. Here too, some significant differences emerged. For example, most environment students (n = 53; 58%) were certain that they “wanted to commit” whereas most development students (n = 52; 60%) claimed more equivocally that they “wanted to try to commit” to the SDGs.

Analysis from the above findings, taken together with open comments, suggests that inclusion of the SDGs within the course curriculum could encourage students to become more committed to the achievement of the SDGs. To test this hypothesis, a multiple regression was run to predict SDGs commitment from gender, major, perceived SDGs usefulness and feasibility. These variables partially predicted SDGs commitment, F(5, 166) = 4.970, p < 0.001, R² = 0.130. However, only gender and major variables added statistically significantly to the prediction, p < 0.05 (Table 3). These results confirm that more female students either “wanted to commit” or “tried to commit” whereas comparatively more male students “hadn’t thought about SDGs” or were “not ready to commit” to them:

RQ1:

Which demographic factors could predict the student respondents’ SDG perspectives?

Results confirmed that freshmen students in both classes welcomed SDGs as an entry point to ED studies. Self-stated commitment to implementing the SDGs was high, especially among environment students. Students reported that including the SDGs in the curriculum of the class encouraged them to become more committed to realizing their achievement by 2030. The multiple regression findings were in line with various prior studies that have identified significant differences by gender, with females reported to have more pro-environmental orientation than males (Zelezny et al., 2000; Vicente-Molina et al., 2013). Other studies concur that females displayed more pro-sustainable attitudes than males (Aleixo et al., 2021; Bahaee et al., 2014; Chaplin and Wyton, 2014; Lozano et al., 2013). Additionally, these findings are also consistent with Chuvieco et al.’s (2018) findings that a students’ major is strongly correlated with sustainable practices, environmental majors being more committed to SDGs. Beyond gender and major, our research could not categorically pinpoint potential predictors of the students’ pro-environmental orientation, knowledge and behaviour. Such predictors could include the depth and level of instruction, with graduate school SD courses shown to increase students’ pro-sustainability attitudes (Ewert and Baker, 2001; Brody and Ryu, 2006):

RQ2:

Is there a relationship between commitment and perceived feasibility that SDGS can be achieved?

The second research question investigated a relationship between self-stated commitment and perceived feasibility that the SDGs can be achieved by 2030. However, statistical evidence was not forthcoming of a robust relationship between commitment and SDGs feasibility. Although various regression analyses were conducted, such variables as gender and major could not reliably predict the strength of self-stated belief that the SDGs could be achieved by 2030. Our findings support Lambrechts et al.’s (2018) assertion that individual traits have a greater influence on attitudes towards SDGs. Furthermore, because most of the students were Japanese in this study, we were not able to do a comparison study with students from other countries. The majority of our respondents were unconvinced that the SDGs were entirely feasible by 2030, echoing Cotton et al.’s (2016) assessment of British students as more pessimistic than their Portuguese counterparts who were more optimistic towards renewable energy goals.

Significant differences by predictor for commitment were more equivocal for perceived feasibility. Partly this reflects the difficulty of categoric reflection on the diversity of SDGs within the limits of a questionnaire survey. This conundrum is recognized by Nazneen et al. (2021), who reported that Gilgit-Baltistan residents’ perception of transport infrastructure development as a catalyst contributed positively to achieving SDG#1 (poverty alleviation) while simultaneously showing negative correlation with SDG#15 (life on land). These two targets epitomize the underlying trade-off between economic development on the one hand, and environmental conservation on the other, which could cause confusion in the minds of survey respondents and also raises broader issues over feasibility given that such dilemmas underpin many of the well-intentioned targets. The results thus hint at the depth of the challenge faced if SDGs are to be operationalized by 2030 within the rapidly narrowing window of opportunity, which will require effective integration that cuts across HEI barriers:

RQ3:

What are the implications for integrating SDGs into HEI curriculum based on students’ perspectives?

The third research question investigated pedagogical implications for SDGs’ vertical integration across the same college, major or class (environment or development). Students from both classes felt the topic to be relevant and appropriate for the freshmen level. Nearly all the respondents recognized SDGs to be “very” or “somewhat useful” as an educational tool. Content analysis from 148 open comments evaluated current integration or pedagogical approaches to further enhance learning. The learner-centred emphasis was reflected by the frequency of “students” appearing 33 times among the comments, second only to “SDGs”. In addition, “Class” (25 times) and “Goal” (23 times) also appeared frequently, as demonstrated by comments such as the following from a male student from the environment class who found the SDGs “somewhat useful”. He wrote, “Make the class [content] more tailored to the SDGs. For example, when covering the energy module use SDG #7 [affordable and clean energy]”.

Students’ opinions about the integration of SDGs across the parallel ED class content reflect some of the barriers and challenges that exist even within the same major. In terms of this study’s design, the fact that few significant differences emerged between the two classes has implications for future research discussed later. While students recognized their heightened SDGs-related knowledge at the end of both courses, the heightened awareness did not automatically lead to a greater commitment to sustainability. This “value-action gap” found here reflects other studies (Chaplin and Wyton, 2014; Hume, 2010). In the development class, students seemed most confident in their knowledge of the specific pre-assigned goal they presented and researched about. From a pedagogical perspective, this suggests that while students can easily grasp SDGs’ broader targets and empathize with their justifications, the depth of their understanding may not easily extend into the crosscutting core.

The open question on barriers to SDG implementation enabled qualitative insights into some of the reasons for doubts over feasibility. Many students revealed a degree of frustration with the efforts of external actors, including other countries – also an indication of geopolitical tensions in the region. Here is one example response: “I feel that activities related to the SDGs are spreading in Japan, Europe etc., but big countries with large populations, such as China and the U.S., are reluctant to make such efforts”. Another student was more positive: “because the current progress results show that many of the SDG targets have been re-solved, almost re-solved, or will be solved”. The Appendix further delineates the SDG topic coding themes, descriptions and quotations illustrating category in the environment class.

Overall, the students’ opinions reflect prior studies that suggest individual instructors bare the biggest responsibility when introducing SDGs into their course (Barth and Rieckmann, 2012; Orlovic Lovren et al., 2020). Students expect their lecturers to be academic experts that use the SDGs toolbox to provide concrete and targeted case study examples from local and global scenarios. According to the European University Continuing Education Network (EUCEN, 2019) SDGs cannot be integrated effectively without professional development and an emphasis on university lifelong learning. Faculty development was noted by Wright (2004) among five instigators of sustainability institutionalization within universities. Yet without dedicated teacher training, these findings reveal the challenges of integrating parallel curricula to introduce SDGs as a methodological toolbox to engage and educate students.

Re-designing “learner-centered and action-oriented” pedagogies

Following on from the issue of course design and integration, an overarching aim sought to investigate implications for “learner-centred and action-oriented” pedagogies. Here too, the results were eclectic, in line with the diversity of SDGs’ material. Some respondents from both classes desired a different pedagogical approach and more concrete examples of SDGs in action. This finding supports current scholarship that suggests tying theory and practice together is essential for SD curricula. Learning about real-world examples tremendously aids comprehension of sustainability concepts (Orlovic Lovren et al., 2020). This ideology was reflected in the environment class’s curriculum that incorporates numerous hands-on examples of “incremental changes” that students can make to reduce their everyday carbon footprint. These include not only the stereotypical “re-use of eco-bags” and “re-usable mugs/cups” but also extends to more innovative ideas, including collection points to reuse or recycle resources ranging from plastic bags, books and batteries to clothes and chewing gum (Vicente-Molina et al., 2013). Students exchanged opinions on emerging lifestyle choices such as meat-free burgers or eco-gyms, while other real or imagined products were conceived or developed, such as environmentally-friendly drinking straws and toothbrushes made from bamboo, a renewable and locally abundant resource.

However, unlike in the development class, the environment syllabus had not been fundamentally revised with SDGs at the crux. In fact, the exact positioning of the SDGs within the respective syllabi was not always made explicit and 23 students (from both classes) desired additional clarification. For example, one student wrote, “I wanted more explanations of SDGs by the professor”. Others requested a lesson plan that directly connected the lecture with the specific SDG, demonstrated by comments such as “it would be good to explain the SDGs in more detail and elaborate on what number of the SDGs we are talking about that the lecture applies to”. Other students preferred pedagogical alternatives such as more field work and interactive discussions. In the development class that used more project-based presentations, students reported that they wanted extra guidance from the instructor, while in the environment class that was more lecture-based, 11 students said they wanted more discussion and presentations. These results reflect the lack of a “one-size-fits all” solution given the heterogenous nature of students’ needs. In fact, a variety of pedagogical approaches to teaching SDGs is often promoted (Lozano et al., 2017; UNESCO, 2012) as a more effective teaching style. Nonetheless, alternatives to conventional lectures have not yet been widely used to teach SDGs in HEI settings due to the lack of a systematic approach to teaching SD curriculum (Lozano et al., 2017). Despite the diversity of pedagogical approaches available, including interactive methods (such as role plays, group discussion) and action-oriented methods (such as field work and outdoor education) the logistics of teaching freshmen courses with over 100 students makes it harder to implement (Cotton and Winter, 2010; Lambrechts et al., 2013). Therefore, according to Boyd and Harris (2010) most HEI faculty continue to rely on a conventional lecture format for practical reasons and because it remains the accepted norm. Given the sudden switch to online or blended teaching during the pandemic, further debate over the “learner-centred and action-oriented” approach will be essential if the current undergraduates are to become the “change agents” that inspire SDG implementation (Fokdal et al., 2019). Ozis et al. (2022) contend that to reposition the conventional paradigm required for sustainable design, HEI instructors should use straightforward, approachable active learning methodologies in the classroom and across the curriculum. One inspirational environmental education tool to be investigated further is game-based learning, either via in-person board games or online role-player workshops (Chen and Ho, 2022). Gaming could help encourage an interactive platform with a friendly but competitive atmosphere. Yet our results reiterate that educational tools and lesson plans developed around student-centric perceptions of SDGs must still be framed for feasibility in the context of holistic HEI efforts to alter individuals’ consumption habits and impact their long-term sustainability practices (Leal Filho et al., 2019).

Conclusion, limitations and implications

The UN’s (2020) Decade of Action campaign intends to ramp up progress towards the SDGs’ 2030 target. Yet Guterres and Liu (2020) suggest that many of the metrics may be struggling, underlining the challenge facing HEIs to equip current and future generations of students with SDG-ready responses. Prior research has investigated individual predictors of ESD (Rodríguez-Barreiro et al., 2013; Vicente-Molina et al., 2013) without delving into student-centric perceptions of SDGs and their feasibility in the context of universities’ curriculum and related scaffolding. This renewed focus on a “learner-centered and action-oriented” approach is in line with Fokdal et al.’s (2019) call for student-centric “change agents” whose self-reliance and sense of responsibility galvanize societal transformation towards sustainable solutions. Our paper investigated vertical integration of SDGs across a HEI curriculum in two parallel courses from an Asia-Pacific university. Japanese undergraduates’ demographics were captured together with SDG perception predictors commitment and perceived feasibility that SDGs can be achieved by 2030. Findings showed that freshmen students in both classes rated the SDGs as a useful learning tool but remained sceptical of their feasibility by 2030. Self-stated commitment was high, especially in the environment class. However, a multiple regression could only partially predict SDGs commitment and empirical evidence of a link remains elusive. Variables such as gender and major showed significant differences for commitment but were less equivocal in terms of predicting the self-stated belief that the SDGs could be achieved by 2030. Nonetheless, the survey findings offer a platform for further integration of SDGs across parallel curriculum. After sharing the survey results, a further round of feedback was also conducted by the educators across the two courses moderated by a third party. Together, the three authors pilot tested various board games and online SDG role-play simulators to brainstorm future integration of syllabi.

Research limitations

This descriptive and exploratory paper was limited to a single case study analysis (Yin, 2009) of two introduction-level freshmen surveys from a predominantly domestic Japanese student perspective. Efforts were made to protect the privacy of student respondents, such as anonymizing answers and back-translating them into the English language. However, some degree of inaccuracy is to be expected as a self-stated survey rather than an observation of actual behaviour (Kennedy et al., 2009; Hensher, 2010). Different teaching styles were used in the two courses, so the overall results may also reflect certain faculty-specific details outside the scope of this analysis. For example, in the “Environment” class, the SDGs were introduced broadly and used as an overarching framework to spotlight various conservation issues. On the other hand, the entire “Development” curriculum was structured around specific SDGs, with student groupwork designed to offer opportunities to gain more in-depth knowledge of their pre-assigned SDG. Emphasis was placed on understanding implementation from the point of view of international organizations, so “action” was discussed in relation to student’s future contributions working for such organizations – thus, the difference with “Environment” hands-on approach. Post-survey feedback also revealed that the former class had emphasized on “hands-on” examples of sustainability activities that students can easily engage with on an individual level, whereas the latter class placed more emphasis on the global situation and the role of international actors in advancing the SDG agenda. In the future, such discussions could be used to trigger a more cross-cutting syllabus design strategy (Watson et al., 2013).

Implications

The transformation towards sustainability represents a substantial challenge for HEIs. The findings of this study can inform instructors of students’ perceptions towards SDGs and thereby assist attitudinal and behavioural change. Future studies should involve a comparison of SDGs commitment against a control group, such as higher-grade undergraduate or graduate students from a different major. Tuncer (2008) found no significant difference in students’ awareness regardless of prior experience of environmental-related courses, but a future round of surveys could compare respondents’ perspectives across a range of majors and universities. In addition, the significant differences revealed in terms of major and gender raise certain discussion points, such as how to better motivate male students. A future focus on the “business case” of sustainability might engage more male students, as the environment was emphasized over the social or economic dimensions of the SDGs’ triple bottom line. There are also implications for institutionalizing SDG implementation across the university’s masterplan. The “APU 2030 Vision”, for example, makes no specific mention of the SDGs despite the Ritsumeikan parent group’s pledge to reduce net carbon emissions to zero by 2050. On campus, environmental quality and improved information can significantly advance students’ involvement in sustainability (Dagiliūtė et al., 2018), so further inclusion of students’ opinions should be considered as efforts are accelerated to integrate SDGs across HEIs, both in terms of targeted curriculum design, integration and training of instructors (Wright, 2004; Green, 2013).

Table 1.

Survey findings – respondent profile

n = 177	Development	Environment
Gender
Female	49	61
Male	34	30
Prefer not to say	3	0
Course
Japanese	74	84
Track
International	10	7
College
APS	67	84
APM	13	6
Year
1st Year	54	76
2nd Year	14	10
3rd Year+	4	5
Major
E&D	20	45
CSM	8	10
HT	17	15
IRPS	1	3
APM	4	3
Still undecided	31	12

Notes:

Environment and development (E&D); Culture, society, media (CSM); Hospitality tourism (HT); International relations political science (IRPS)

Source: Authors’ own work

Table 2.

Independent samples t-test to compare mean differences in two classes

Respondents’ agreement measured on a four-point Likert scale (※0 = not at all; 3 = strongly agree)	Development	Environment	Levene’s test for			t-test for
	n = 87	n = 91	equality of variances			equality of means
	M	M	F	Sig.	t	Sig. (two-tailed)	MD	SE
The SDGs in this course are a useful learning tool	2.44	2.66	1.615	0.205	2.789	0.006	0.223	0.080
I am personally committed to achieving SDGs	2.23	2.53	1.024	0.313	3.191	0.002	0.298	0.093
Compared to the start of this course, my feelings about contributing to the SDGs have changed	2.08	2.31	0.626	0.430	2.557	0.011	0.227	0.089
The SDGs can feasibly be achieved by 2030	1.38	1.29	2.301	0.131	−0.956	0.340	−0.094	0.098

Source: Authors’ own work

Table 3.

Results of multiple regression shows SDGs commitment predictors

	Unstandardized coefficients		Standardized coefficients
Predictor variables	B	SE	Beta	t	p-value
(Constant)	0.648	0.302		2.149	0.033
Gender	0.205	0.085	0.184	2.404	0.017
Major	0.326	0.101	0.241	3.224	0.002
Grade	−0.147	0.125	−0.088	−1.179	0.24
SDGs_useful	0.145	0.089	0.12	1.624	0.106
SDGs_feasible	0.053	0.074	0.053	0.719	0.473

Notes:

R² = 0.13, ANOVA F = 4.970, p = < 0.001

Source: Authors’ own work

Table A1.

Usefulness of SDG topic coding themes, descriptions and quotes to illustrate category – environmental studies

Main coding category/sub coding category	Description	Quotation illustrating category	No. of students
Examples	Examples students wanted of SDGs in the curriculum
Concrete examples	Concrete examples of how companies or people are trying to accomplish the SDGs	Present more concrete examples of the SDGs	17
Practical examples	Examples of how SDG’s connect to students’ daily lives	IIt It would be better if there was an explanation of what kinds of ways there are to practice what is useful for the SDGs in our daily lives	8
International	Examples from around the world	I want to know what students around the world are doing	7
Pedagogy	Overall how the students thought the topic of SDGs could be integrated into the class through activities and learning approaches
Lectures	Weekly lectures could address each SDG	It would be easier to understand if you mention the SDGs in each class and present how the lectures are specifically connected to the SDGs	18
Field work	Local field work or projects could be conducted for hands on experience	Although there are some difficulties with COVID, we believe that more fieldwork would be helpful	11
Discussion/group presentations	Discussions or group presentation could be conducted	Students will learn about the SDGs related to the environment and work in groups to think about a problem and its solution and present their ideas	11
Relevance	Whether the students thought the topic was useful	I think the SDGs are useful for environmental studies	9
Deepen knowledge	Students recognized the SDG topic was useful but wanted deeper knowledge about the topic	We believe that we should focus on each of the items of the SDGs and create an environment where people can think more deeply now by sharing ideas for achieving the goals	9

Table A2.

Usefulness of SDG topic coding themes, descriptions and quotes to illustrate category – developmental studies

Main coding category/ sub coding category	Description	Quotation illustrating category	No. of students
Examples	Examples students wanted of SDGs in the curriculum
Concrete examples	Concrete examples of how companies or people are trying to accomplish the SDGs	I wanted a little more supplementation for each one	5
International	Examples from around the world	Compare the status by country	1
Pedagogy	Overall, how the students thought the topic of SDGs could be integrated into the class through activities and learning approaches
Teacher lectures	Students wanted the teacher to provide more information about each SDG in a lecture	I wanted an explanation of the SDGs by the professor	5
Interaction with other groups	Students wanted to interact with other group members or discuss the SDG topic	We think it would be even better if group discussions were incorporated	3

Source: Authors’ own work