**5. Conclusions**

Sustainability in the study programs in universities involves addressing tasks such as inclusive academic literacy. This study provides evidence of the evaluation of an inclusive academic literacy intervention integrated into the curriculum [4] that combines multiple delivery methods (classroom and online activities).

In general, the integrated activities were perceived by both the staff of the subject and the students as positive, welcoming and often crucial to support the induction of university students in the disciplinary discourse of their subject matter [10,28]. Statistical data show that there is a relationship between student participation in activities and essay performance, although this relationship is weak. However, the study was limited to the first year of the program and, therefore, was only able to measure the early stages of initiation in disciplinary discourse, an incremental process that involves frequent comments on development [30].

Another interesting finding was the increased participation of students with academic literacy development opportunities outside their study program, suggesting that the integration of literacy at the curriculum level made students more aware of the importance of academic literacy in their learning in general and created greater opportunities for success seeking adaptive help [25,26,34].

The findings also draw attention to the need to reevaluate online activities in the classroom and self-access. Additionally, the possibility of redesigning the module in a participatory approach, using data from the questionnaire, student feedback and the comments and recommendations of the broader teaching team of the focus group discussion, must be considered. In fact, some participants recommended several improvements that could be made to writing activities. In particular, these recommendations were related to the importance of developing better guidelines for subject teachers on how to offer the integrated component of academic literacy, as well as advocating for student participation in module design [12,46].

In addition, the results demonstrate that perfecting collaborative approaches to integrate academic literacy by being a slow and heuristic process requires close collaboration between writing instructors and subject tutors in the design and delivery of integrated literacy [13,40,44,45].

Therefore, this study contributes to the literature on inclusive procedural and pedagogical approaches to integrate academic literacy into the teaching of the subject. Here, we demonstrate that inclusive and innovative ways of leaving no one behind can have significant repercussions for the teaching–learning process, for the student's experience and for the reputation of universities [1–3]. Based on the findings, it can be argued that there is a need to develop inclusive and sustainable collaborative teaching patterns and practices that can help subject teachers integrate academic literacy into their curricula and reflect on the importance of including a broader teaching team (for example, SLA and GTA) and students in the design of literacy integrated into the curriculum. These contributions are in line with the demands of the United Nations, which pay attention to the sustainable development in teaching at universities [51,52].

In addition to practical concerns, we believe that longitudinal research should be conducted to better assess the development of student academic literacy throughout the program's life cycle (for example, during the duration of their bachelor's degree program). More qualitative and quantitative studies should also be performed to review and compare the different levels of integration of academic literacy in different disciplinary areas of higher education in the United Kingdom and worldwide in order to identify the characteristics of 'good practice' so as to ensure an inclusive collaboration practice of the intervention.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, S.C. and L.C.; Formal analysis, A.M.; Investigation, S.C. and L.C.; Methodology, S.C. and L.C.; Supervision, A.M., J.M.G.M. and P.N.-C.U.; Validation, J.M.G.M. and P.N.-C.U.; Writing—original draft, S.C. and L.C.; and Writing—review and editing, A.M., J.M.G.M. and P.N.-C.U. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
