Civic Education and the Use of Planned Languages on Global Campuses: A Practical Alternative for Enhancing University Students’ Global Citizenship

Higher education in the 21st century is undergoing a paradigm shift that emphasizes global connectivity and civic responsibility as its core values. In particular, universities in South Korea are adopting the recruitment of international students as a key survival strategy in response to structural challenges such as declining school-age population, the crisis facing regional universities, and reduced government funding (Kim, Yae-ji 2024; Kim, Yoon-joo 2024). Accordingly, the construction of a global campus has emerged as a central priority in university policy. At the governmental level, initiatives to attract international students have been steadily strengthened—from the launch of the Study Korea Project in 2004 to the Study Korea 300K Project in 2023—signaling a full-fledged national strategy for internationalization.

As of 2023, the number of international students in South Korea has risen to approximately 180,000 (Kim, Yoon-joo 2024), with a significant portion enrolled in regional universities. However, the quantitative increase in enrollment has not automatically translated into qualitative improvements. Numerous domestic studies have shown that international students face serious challenges in academic persistence and adaptation due to a complex mix of factors, including limited language proficiency, academic difficulties in their majors, cultural isolation, and financial hardship (Choi, H. 2018; Lee 2022; Kim et al. 2023).

Among these, language remains the most serious barrier. This issue goes beyond mere communication difficulties and directly results in a lack of interaction and mutual understanding between international and domestic students. Most international students are required to integrate into an educational environment centered on Korean or English, but these languages are fundamentally rooted in the linguistic dominance of specific groups. This creates an asymmetrical structure that places the burden of adaptation solely on international students (van Parijs 2003, Ahn et al. 2023).

As a result, this structural asymmetry undermines the original aims of global campuses—namely, intercultural exchange, mutual understanding, and the cultivation of a shared sense of community. Even though GCED¹ is actively promoted within universities, the prevailing language policies and cultural environments remain designed primarily for domestic students, thereby marginalizing international students (Choi, S. 2018).

At its core, GCED aims to foster citizens who can recognize and practice universal human values beyond the boundaries of race, nationality, and language (UNESCO 2015). However, in practice, this philosophy is often reduced to English-centered instruction or numerical targets for internationalization. International students risk becoming passive “consumers” of education, while domestic students often experience global citizenship education only superficially, without meaningful international engagement.

To overcome these limitations, this study calls for a fundamental rethinking of “language” in educational contexts. In particular, planned languages, such as Esperanto, designed to be politically neutral and free from linguistic hierarchies, offer a promising alternative. They allow us to critically examine the structural inequalities of existing language policies while simultaneously enhancing both intercultural competence and civic engagement (Halperin 2012, Schor 2016). Learning a planned language is not merely about acquiring a new linguistic system but also about engaging in a philosophical reflection on such questions as “What is language?” and “For whom does language exist?”—questions that are central to the praxis of GCED.

Thus, planned languages serve not only as practical tools but also as ethical and philosophical instruments for realizing linguistic justice in education. This study focuses on the educational potential of planned languages and explores how they can be applied within the context of Korean universities, especially in regional settings, to support civic learning and inclusion.

The purpose of this study is to examine the philosophical and functional connections between global citizenship education and the use of planned languages, and to design an educational program model applicable to Korean universities. Moving beyond theoretical discussion, the study proposes concrete strategies for integrating such approaches into both curricular and extracurricular activities, with the aim of enabling students to interact in a linguistically equitable environment.

This study highlights the dual role of planned languages: on the one hand, as practical solutions to address multilingual inequality in increasingly diverse campuses; and on the other, as philosophical instrument for critical refletion on linguistic power, cultural hierarchy, and the meaning of equal participation.

To this end, the study is guided by the following three research questions:

Through theoretical exploration and program design, this study seeks to address these questions and present a viable alternative model that can supplement the structural limitations of existing approaches to civic education. As no pilot implementation data are included, the paper is explicitly positioned as a conceptual proposal, with its primary contribution lying in framing and design rather than empirical validation. 

Global citizenship refers to the identity and practice in which individuals adopt a sense of responsibility not only toward their local communities but also toward the lives of all humanity and global issues. This concept is closely linked to values such as human rights, equality, sustainability, and intercultural understanding, and it goes beyond mere international awareness to emphasize the capacity to act for a shared future (UNESCO 2015). In the context of education, global citizenship aims to cultivate students’ abilities to critically analyze global issues, collaborate in multicultural societies, and engage in actions based on justice (Han et al. 2015, Lee et al. 2015, UNESCO MGIEP 2019).

The OECD (2018) defines global citizenship education in terms of three core competences: (i) cognitive competence (knowledge of global issues), (ii) social and emotional competence (empathy, solidarity, and intercultural understanding), and (iii) behavioral competence (critical thinking and social participation). This framework encourages an understanding of global citizenship not merely as an attitude or emotion, but as a foundation for ethically actionable behaviors.

In South Korea, global citizenship is often approached in an integrated manner alongside multicultural understanding, respect for human rights, and the SDGs. More recently, under the influence of UNESCO’s Asia-Pacific initiatives, there has been increasing emphasis on the intersection of global citizenship and education, linking it to problem-solving competencies in real-world contexts such as conflict resolution in multicultural societies and responses to the climate crisis (Han et al. 2015, Kim & Park 2015, Na & Jho 2017, UNESCO APCEIU 2022).

From this perspective, global citizenship does not seek to replace national civic identity but rather to expand it into a higher-order identity grounded in universal human values. In this process, the role of language is fundamental. Language serves as the basis for thought and world perception, and as a crucial tool for understanding, cooperation, and solidarity with others.

A planned language is a linguistic attempt to provide a fair and equitable communicative environment that is not subject to the interests of specific nations or ethnic groups (Janton 1993/2006, Zamenhof 1905). Historically, constructed languages such as Esperanto, Interlingua, and Unish have exemplified this idea. These languages were intentionally designed to dismantle structural inequalities among natural languages and to establish a foundation for mutual understanding (Lee 2002).

The philosophy of planned languages can be summarized in three core aspects. First is the realization of linguistic justice. This principle critiques the monopoly of certain language groups over knowledge production, politics, economics, and education, and calls for conditions that ensure equitable language use. Van Parijs (2003) conceptualized this as “fair burden sharing among language communities,” highlighting the disproportionate cost placed on non-native speakers of dominant languages such as English. Recent studies in constructed languages emphasize that the introduction of planned languages can serve as an educational tool to promote equality and linguistic justice in multilingual societies (Chin 2023).

Second, planned languages aim to foster intercultural understanding and create conditions for equitable communication. In practice, the Esperanto movement has been tested in peace and cooperation education programs run by international NGOs, human rights organizations, and educational institutions (Forster 1982, Gobbo 2017). For example, the UEA has collaborated with the United Nations and European NGOs to use Esperanto in multilingual projects for both operational and promotional purposes. Volunteer translators from the Esperanto community have contributed to translating materials for international events, campaigns, and TED-Esperanto subtitle projects, thereby demonstrating the potential for equitable communication and transnational collaboration. In educational practice, comparative studies of planned languages such as Unish and Esperanto allow for concrete exploration of linguistic and cultural neutrality (Lee 2002). In Korea, Esperanto has been introduced in alternative education settings as part of global citizenship and peace education curricula (Esperanto Professional Learning Community 2020). These efforts enable students and teachers to engage in multicultural experiences and collaborative communication, with documented cases of successful implementation. Such initiatives contribute meaningfully to reducing asymmetrical communication and expanding a shared sense of cultural community.

Third, although planned languages have seen limited practical dissemination, they hold significant potential as experimental educational tools. Janton (1993/2016) argued that while Esperanto is neither a perfect nor a planned language, it occupies a unique position as a continuous experiment that makes a feasible ideal tangible. Rather than simply acquiring a new language, engaging with a planned language can serve as a philosophical foundation for reflecting on the nature of language, inequality, and linguistic dominance (Schor 2016, Gobbo 2017).

Over the past several years, Korean universities have actively expanded GCED through both general education courses and extracurricular programs under the banner of constructing global campuses. The Ministry of Education and various national higher education funding initiatives have encouraged the development of GCED courses that incorporate themes such as the SDGs, multicultural understanding, and knowledge of the United Nations and other international organizations. In response, many universities have introduced new courses aimed at promoting interaction between international students and domestic students (Han et al. 2015). However, course designs that meaningfully implement intercultural understanding and linguistic equity remain underdeveloped.

In practice, most GCED-labeled courses are conducted in English or follow a unidirectional, theory-driven model that transmits multicultural content without participatory engagement. As a result, meaningful interaction between domestic and international students is often limited or superficial. Arnold (2016) warned that the concept of global citizenship risks being reduced to marketable elements such as cultural exchange, overseas experiences, and global competencies, rather than emphasizing social justice or critical agency. Dill points out that while the ideals of global citizenship education demand both individual ethical autonomy and communal solidarity, these are rarely translated into concrete educational practices. In particular, power asymmetries in language use and symbolic forms of exclusion can contribute to what she calls the production of “client citizenship” (Dill 2013: 137).

Such limitations are especially pronounced in regional universities in Korea, where student populations are becoming increasingly multilingual and multinational. On campuses where Korean, English, Chinese, Vietnamese, Mongolian, and other languages coexist, English-based instruction is often used as a proxy for internationalization. However, for many international students. This model creates linguistic alienation and restricts genuine participation. The resulting linguistic hierarchy undermines educational equity and access, exacerbated by Korea’s exam-oriented educational culture and ethnocentric worldview, which further hinders the acceptance of linguistic and cultural diversity (Sim 2016, Choi 2023).

Considering these challenges, there is an urgent need for alternative language approaches that can dismantle existing asymmetrical linguistic structures and establish a more equitable basis for participation. Park (2012) emphasizes that GCED must move beyond knowledge acquisition to embrace the complexity and multiplicity of identities, fostering multicultural dialogue and inclusive participation through a holistic and constructivist educational approach. He especially critiques the uniformity and language-centeredness prevalent in the Korean education system and argues that genuine global citizenship requires acknowledging global diversity and designing educational environments that promote mutual respect for a wide range of identities—including linguistic ones.

As a practical alternative to overcoming the aforementioned limitations, extracurricular activities using planned languages are drawing increasing attention. As implied by the philosophy of planned languages, these languages are free from the interests of particular nations or ethnic groups and function as tools for equalizing linguistic starting points (van Parijs 2003). Within the context of GCED in Korean universities, a planned language may be less a tool for direct communication and more an educational medium for engaging with and reflecting on linguistic justice.

Van Parijs (2003) argued that linguistic justice goes beyond fairness in language use and instead requires the fair sharing of burdens among different language communities. He emphasized that in multilingual realities, a just linguistic order should not involve a minority learning the majority’s language, but rather, all participants learning a mutually new and neutral third language (p. 153). From this perspective, experimenting with planned languages in Korean universities is not merely a search for practical communication tools, but rather a meaningful attempt to experience an ethical model of linguistic justice.

Nevertheless, planned languages face clear limitations in terms of dissemination and adoption. For example, Esperanto—though theoretically robust in its grammar, logical structure, and political neutrality—ultimately failed to replace existing but imperfect linguistic systems such as English. Patterson (1999) attributes this failure to pragmatic inertia and entrenched power structures, noting that this pattern reflected a broader lesson not limited to language alone. Similar phenomena are seen in areas like information standards and data exchange protocols, where technically superior designs do not always lead to social adoption. In domains like language, deeply embedded in historical and political contexts, ideal design alone cannot easily transform existing systems.

However, such shortcomings also highlight an important potential: planned languages need not function solely as replacement tools for existing languages but can instead serve as philosophical and educational mediators that prompt reflection on linguistic inequality and dominant power structures. This shifts the focus away from practical language acquisition and instead invites learners to recognize how language is interwoven with political and social authority. Rather than simply learning a language, students are invited to learn about language—examining structural inequities and understanding language choice as a matter of power and justice.

This approach aligns closely with the core components of intercultural competence as proposed by Byram (1997): Self-reflection, critical distance-taking, understanding of other cultures, and ethical judgment. When students from diverse linguistic backgrounds engage in experimental classes using planned languages, they collaboratively explore the conditions for linguistic equality. This provides a form a practical citizenship education that traditional language education often cannot offer. Thus, planned languages hold educational value not as ends in themselves, but as mediator languages—tools for thinking through citizenship, justice, and identity. Their impact is most potent when applied in experimental formats such as extracurricular programs or cross-cultural workshops.

Based on the preceding discussion, an extracurricular activity centered on planned languages can be structured around four key educational principles. First, it aims to equalize linguistic starting points by having both domestic and international students learn the same new language, thereby dismantling hierarchical language structures. Second, it seeks to raise awareness of linguistic justice by encouraging students to continuously reflect on the question, “Why are we using a new, unfamiliar language instead of English or Korean?” Third, it facilitates experiential boundary-crossing and collaboration through joint tasks and role-playing, fostering civic attitudes that transcend cultural and linguistic divides. Fourth, it provides a space for practicing intercultural coexistence, where the focus of communication shifts from linguistic fluency to the will to learn and the attitude of attentive listening.

Grounded in this philosophy, the following 15-week extracurricular program—titled “Fair Language Lab”—is proposed in Table 1. Looking more closely at each phase of the proposed Fair Language Lab, the structure is as follows:

In Phase 1, students critically examine the hierarchical nature of language and issues of inequality in global education. Through surveys and case studies, they come to recognize the asymmetric power structures embedded in language. This leads into the conceptual and philosophical foundations of planned languages, including discussions on linguistic justice and the ethical imperatives of non-dominant communication.

In phase 2, students are introduced to simple sentences in constructed languages such as Esperanto and apply them in practical communication activities. The emphasis here is not on fluency or linguistic function, but rather on experiencing linguistic equity by stepping outside the norms of dominant language systems.

Phase 3 involves collaborative, multicultural group activities mediated by a planned language or co-created linguistic system. Activities may include mock UN conferences, negotiation role-plays, or creating an original language collaboratively. These are designed to help students practice the connection between language, citizenship, and cooperation, echoing the intercultural communication competencies emphasized by Byram (1997).

In Phase 4, students reflect on linguistic experiments and citizenship education they experienced throughout the semester. They analyze how their perceptions of language, power, and civic engagement have changed, and offer feedback on how the program could be improved or expanded. This phase opens discussion on the institutional feasibility and broader applicability of such experimental educational models.

This four-phase program design does not treat planned languages as mere communication tools, but instead as pedagogical instruments for interrogating linguistic inequality and simulating conditions of equitable communication. By embedding the philosophical framework of linguistic justice into educational practice, the program aims not simply to enhance multilingual competence but to foster civic sensitivity and intercultural ethical responsibility.

Unlike credit-bearing regular courses, this type of experimental program operates outside the framework of achievement-oriented assessment. As such, it provides an open and flexible structure in which students from diverse majors and linguistic backgrounds can participate more freely and voluntarily. As an expanded model of GCED in practice, the program holds particular significance in offering participants the opportunity to experience and reflect upon linguistic hierarchies and inequalities.

Several conditions must be met to ensure the stable operation of such a program. First, administrative flexibility must be secured. To this end, collaboration with offices such as the extracurricular education center or the general education center should be arranged in advance. It is especially important to institutionalize flexibility that allows the program to be scheduled and operated outside of regular class hours.

Second, the placement of student assistants and multilingual supporters is necessary. Given that students from various linguistic backgrounds are expected to participate, these assistants play a critical role in reducing language barriers and facilitating smooth group activities.

Third, collaboration with external organizations is recommended. Partnering with local multicultural family support centers, civic organizations, or international exchange associations can enable the program’s final presentations or project outcomes to be shared with the public. This, in turn, enhances students’ sense of civic participation and action-oriented awareness.

Fourth, the program should operate on a small group basis. Since language practice and civic discussion are core components of the activities, a learning environment that supports active interaction and idea exchange among participants is essential.

When these conditions are met, the program can effectively embody Dill’s (2013) assertion that ethical citizenship education is only possible through practice. In other words, rather than limiting itself to abstract theoretical discourse, the program becomes a space for learners to directly experience and interrogate the relationship between language and power. This has the potential to significantly reorient the discourse on global citizenship education in South Korea.

Global citizenship education in Korean universities has yet to fully realize its core values of linguistic justice and linguistic equality. As a practical alternative to address this gap, extracurricular activities based on planned languages offer a promising experimental space. The proposed program operationalizes van Parijs’s (2003) argument for the fair distribution of linguistic burdens and aligns with Dill’s (2013) practice-centered model of GCED. Korean university campuses —where students from diverse linguistic backgrounds, including Chinese, Vietnamese, Mongolian, and Uzbeks, come together—represent both the context that most urgently needs and is most conducive to this kind of fair language experimentation.