INTEREST

References
Danes, S.M., & Haberman, H.R. (2007). Teen financial knowledge, self-efficacy, and behavior: a
gendered view. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 18(2), 48-60.
This journal article details a study measuring the impact of a financial planning
curriculum on 5329 teens by examining differences in financial knowledge acquisition,
self-efficacy development, and behavior performance. The conclusions focused on the
how gender differences impacted the acquisition, saving, and expenditure of money. The
study found that although males knew more about credit costs, auto insurance, and
investments than females did, males had less knowledge gain after the curriculum was
taught. Additionally, both before and after the course, female students were more likely
to believe that managing money affects their future than males.

These findings indicate to me that perhaps I should make one of the focuses of the
curriculum that learning to manage ones money does indeed have an impact on ones
future. It would be good to find a study or journal article that corroborates this so that it is
more convincing. In addition, I may want to implement a method of evaluating how
much students gain knowledge, perhaps quizzes or tests. However, a disadvantage of
those two options is that it may cause students to lose interest.

Huston, S.J. (2010). Measuring financial literacy. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 44(2), 296-316.
This study calls into question the effectiveness of financial education programs in
providing measurable benefits to financial knowledge and literacy. It cites some other
studies that have mixed results, showing that the relationship between the two may not be
as simple as one may assume. An important finding is that for students of low
socioeconomic status who are resource-constrained in other ways, education may be less
effective than other forms of intervention. It also clearly states that many more factors

INTEREST
may effect financial literacy beyond the amount of financial education received,
including impulsiveness, behavioral biases, unusual preferences or external
circumstances.

The claims this article makes seem to be reliable. It states its points logically, cites a large
body of references, and includes two appendices that provide rigorous definitions of the
terms used. The conclusions made have some important implications for my initiative.
Firstly, it challenges the assumption I had made that financial education increases
financial literacy. I do intent on pursuing a financial education program, so I may have to
established a lower limit on the socioeconomic status of the students that Id want to
teach just to make sure that what I teach is indeed effective.

Mandell, L., & Klein, L.S. (2009). The impact of financial literacy education on subsequent financial
behavior. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 20(1), 15-24.
This article concluded that a certain financial education course offered in three high
schools did not demonstrate to have a meaningful long-term impact on students taking
the course by conducting a longitudinal study. A key data point was that 46.2% of
students who took the course balanced their checkbooks at least weekly 5 years after
graduating high school, while only 32.5% of students who did not take the course did so.
The last section focuses on additional research that logically would follow the results of
this study, mentioning that either the content or the educational methods used to provide
financial content to students must be reconsidered.

The sample size of the study was only 79 students, meaning the data is not very
representative. Next, the three high schools studied belonged to the same school system,
meaning that the financial education course was nearly identical. While this allows for

INTEREST
comparison between results of each of the three schools and reduces the number of
extraneous variables that may affect a result, it does not lend itself to generalization to
other high school financial education classes. Based on the conclusions in the article, I
should probably not try to emulate a traditional high school style class. An example
brought up in the article is that students who play a stock market game are significantly
more financially literate than those who are not. I may want to consider implementing
games and other interactive elements into the content that I will be teaching.

McCormick, M.H. (2009). The effectiveness of youth financial education: a review of the literature.
Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 20(1), 70-83.
This paper explores the current state of youth financial education and policy by providing
a snapshot of the current literature. It includes a particularly interesting section about
Youth Program Design that recommends three main improvements for increasing
effectiveness: incorporating a relevant and applicable program design, ensuring effective
forms of motivation, and exposing youth to the content earlier in their lives. The paper
states that the five access points by which financial education to reach students are
through: state standards, testing, textbooks, financial education materials, and teacher
training.

Since the paper is not intended to report the results of survey but rather summarize the
current state of the field, I cant quite say it is reliable or unreliable, nor can I confirm
whether the information it presents is accurate. However, based on the writing style and
the few papers I have read before this one, the information presented seems to be valid.
The three tips provided for good Youth Program Design will be helpful when deciding
how to structure the content that I will be teaching. The third point about exposing youth

INTEREST
to this content earlier in their lives seems like it would work naturally with making
involved and interactive games to teach the content that the previous source suggested.
Varcoe, K.P., Martin, A., Devitto, Z., & Go, C. (2005). Using a financial education curriculum for teens.
Financial Counseling and Planning, 16(1), 63-71.
This paper focused on the effects of a specific teen financial curriculum called Money
Talks on literacy of tested teens. The study found that a number of financial behaviors
changed, including an increased tendency to save and better choices when shopping.
Interestingly, this study found that tested females reported talking more to their families
about money than males, and also reported that males had a greater increase in
knowledge. Overall, the conclusion was that research based curricula in personal finance
yields positive results on teen financial literacy.

The findings from this paper are particularly interesting because it contradicts the
previous findings I have read from Mandell and Huston. Perhaps I should look into the
differences between general school financial education curricula and the Money Talks
curriculum referred to by this article. This article seems slightly more reliable than
Mandells findings, mainly because the sample size is 114 compared to Mandells 79.
This paper mostly helps show me that the connection between financial education
curricula and demonstrated improvement is not so simple that it can be expressed with
one study. Furthermore, there are many other factors that make it difficult to derive a
conclusion that is generalizable.