A randomized controlled trial of project-based learning for middle-school financial literacy

Financial literacy remains low among U.S. middle school students, while engagement with traditional instruction often declines. This class-randomized, posttest-only trial (two intact sections) compared Project-Based Learning and Standards-Based Learning in a budgeting unit delivered via Nearpod^® across three 40-min class sessions. Sixth-grade students designed a class-trip budget (Project-Based Learning) or received structured lectures with practice activities (Standards-Based Learning). A 12-item posttest (7 multiple-choice + 5 open-ended) assessed vocabulary knowledge and applied reasoning. Project-Based Learning outperformed Standards-Based Learning on the combined score: Project-Based Learning n = 23, M = 6.65, SD = 1.40; Standards-Based Learning n = 25, M = 5.64, SD = 1.13; Welch’s t(42.39) = 2.74, p = 0.009; Hedges’ g = 0.78, 95% CI [0.19, 1.36]. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC = 0.22) indicated notable class-level clustering, so student-level inferences are interpreted as exploratory. Findings provide causal evidence that even a brief, decision-focused Project-Based Learning intervention enhances comprehension and application of budgeting concepts more effectively than traditional instruction, highlighting the potential of project-based curricula as authentic and scalable approaches to strengthening middle-school financial literacy.

1 Introduction

1.1 Addressing the dual challenge: financial illiteracy and student disengagement

Despite its essential role in everyday life, financial literacy remains alarmingly low among American middle school students. According to the Council for Economic Education (2024), 28 states require students to take an economics course, while 35 mandate a standalone personal finance course. This gap is especially pronounced in under-resourced urban schools, where disparities in access to financial education contribute to long-term inequities in economic mobility (Lusardi and Mitchell, 2014). Compounding the issue, many middle schoolers report low engagement with traditional instruction. Surveys indicate that fewer than half of students report being engaged at school (Gallup, 2018). Gallup also reports that student engagement declines steadily from elementary through high school, with particularly sharp drops in the middle grades (Gallup, 2024). Together, these challenges underscore the need for more relevant and motivating approaches to financial education.

Project-Based Learning is an instructional approach in which students gain knowledge and skills by working for an extended period of time to investigate and respond to authentic, engaging, and complex questions or problems, with an emphasis on student-driven problem-solving and real-world application (Buck Institute for Education, 2021). Research shows that such approaches can increase engagement and deepen understanding across disciplines by fostering active inquiry, critical thinking, and collaboration (Condliffe et al., 2017). Standards-Based Learning, in contrast, is a system of instruction, assessment, grading, and academic reporting based on students demonstrating mastery of specific, predefined learning objectives aligned to academic standards, typically delivered through structured, teacher-led lessons (Marzano, 2000). By directly comparing these two models within a controlled budgeting unit, this study investigates which approach more effectively supports middle school students’ comprehension of key budgeting concepts.

To our knowledge, few studies have examined Project-Based Learning within a budgeting curriculum using a class-randomized design at the middle-school level in the United States. This study contributes experimental evidence that remains uncommon in the middle-school financial literacy literature.

1.2 Why compare project-based learning and standards-based learning for budgeting?

Budgeting requires not just conceptual understanding but also decision-making, prioritization, and the ability to navigate trade-offs (Government Finance Officers Association, 2025). Project-Based Learning offers an alternative: an immersive, student-centered approach in which learners apply concepts to realistic, often personally meaningful scenarios. Standards-Based Learning, in contrast, emphasizes coverage of standardized content through structured instruction. Both approaches have strengths, but little research has directly compared their effectiveness in middle school financial literacy instruction. This study seeks to fill that gap by evaluating how Project-Based Learning and Standards-Based Learning impact students’ financial literacy competency in an urban classroom setting.

1.3 What we know about standards-based learning: strengths and limitations

Standards-Based Learning, by contrast, focuses on ensuring that students’ master specific learning objectives aligned with national or state curriculum standards (Marzano, 2003). Standards-Based Learning promotes clarity in expectations and allows for targeted assessments that monitor student progress. Evidence on the impact of structured financial education is mixed: some studies find little lasting behavioral effect (Mandell and Klein, 2009), while recent meta-analyses show average gains in knowledge and modest improvements in financial behaviors (Kaiser and Menkhoff, 2020). However, critics argue that Standards-Based Learning can become overly rigid and teacher-directed, limiting opportunities for creativity and application (Au, 2007). Lee and Ready (2009) discuss how standardized curricula often misalign with student contexts, which may reduce engagement in urban schools. While Standards-Based Learning can ensure students learn financial vocabulary, it may not equip them with the problem-solving skills needed to navigate personal budgeting decisions.

1.4 What we know about project-based learning: theory and evidence

Project-Based Learning is grounded in constructivist theory, which emphasizes learning through active exploration and problem-solving. Thomas (2000) defined Project-Based Learning as instruction centered on authentic questions and real-world challenges that require sustained inquiry and result in student-created products. Holm (2011) conducted a comprehensive literature review, finding that Project-Based Learning leads to improved academic achievement, deeper conceptual understanding, and greater student motivation. Several studies have shown that middle school students in Project-Based Learning environments demonstrate stronger critical thinking and are better able to transfer their knowledge to novel situations (Boaler, 1999; Brush and Saye, 2008). In the context of financial literacy, experimental studies such as Bruhn et al. (2016) and the meta-analysis by Kaiser and Menkhoff (2020) show that school-based programs can improve financial knowledge in the short term and, in some cases, lead to modest improvements in long-term financial behaviors. Importantly, Project-Based Learning has been shown to be especially effective with underserved or disengaged student populations (Railsback, 2002; Strobel and van Barneveld, 2009), making it a compelling candidate for urban financial education.

1.5 Budgeting and project-based learning

While Project-Based Learning has been widely praised for enhancing student engagement and developing real-world skills, most studies evaluating its effectiveness are hindered by methodological limitations. Many rely on observational data or pre-post comparisons without randomized control, making their findings vulnerable to selection bias (Holm, 2011). In the domain of financial education, Project-Based Learning is typically implemented in elective contexts with self-selected, motivated students. These settings often lack standardized assessments or control groups, limiting generalizability Kaiser and Menkhoff (2020).

To date, no known study has conducted a randomized controlled trial using Project-Based Learning as the primary instructional intervention for teaching financial literacy in a middle school setting. Existing trials that involve Project-Based Learning often evaluate broad economics instruction rather than isolating budgeting as a core outcome. For instance, Finkelstein et al. (2010) measured the impact of Project-Based Learning on high school economics knowledge, while Batty et al. (2020) embedded budgeting within a classroom economy simulation, making it difficult to evaluate its effects independently.

This study directly addresses that gap. Using a small-scale randomized controlled design in two classrooms, we compare the impact of Project-Based Learning and Standards-Based Learning on middle school students’ budgeting comprehension, vocabulary use, and decision-making. In doing so, we offer one of the first empirical tests of how instructional design affects financial literacy development in early adolescence.

1.6 A missing piece: the need for comparative studies

While the benefits of both Project-Based Learning and Standards-Based Learning are well documented, few studies have directly compared their effects on financial literacy outcomes. Thomas (2000) identified a critical gap in research comparing student-centered and traditional methods in authentic classroom settings. Many programs are evaluated using post-session “happy sheets” that capture satisfaction but not learning outcomes (Lambert, 2012). Meta-analyses also indicate that while Project-Based Learning can boost engagement and application, direct head-to-head trials with traditional methods—especially in middle schools—remain rare (Strobel and van Barneveld, 2009). Kaiser and Menkhoff (2020), in a global meta-analysis of 37 experimental studies (including 18 RCTs), found average effects of about +0.33 SD on financial knowledge and +0.07 SD on financial behaviors. By using a randomized controlled design, this study offers a level of methodological rigor that extends beyond narrative or observational evaluations, allowing for a direct comparison of how instructional models affect student comprehension, vocabulary use, and decision-making in budgeting. We hypothesized that students in the Project-Based Learning condition would outperform students in the Standards-Based Learning condition on comprehension and real-world application of budgeting concepts.

2 Method

2.1 Participants

Sixty-three sixth-grade students from the same public middle school in the United States participated. All were enrolled in the same science course in which the intervention was implemented and shared a similar socioeconomic background. Two intact class sections were randomly assigned to the Standards-Based Learning (SBL) group (n = 31; 8 female; ages 11–13, M = 11.94) or the Project-Based Learning (PBL) group (n = 32; 12 female; ages 11–13, M = 11.93). Due to absences, the follow-up sample included 48 students (25 SBL, 23 PBL, see Figure 1).

Figure 1

Figure 1. CONSORT diagram. Students who did not take the posttest were excluded; partial completion of open-ended items was retained (row-wise scoring with missing values ignored).

2.2 Procedure

The intervention took place over three 40-min class periods during regularly scheduled instructional time at the same public middle school. Within these lessons, instruction was organized into five thematic phases or task blocks (see Table 1). Two science classes at the school participated: the 3rd-period and the 7th-period classes. Classes were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: the 7th-period class was assigned to the Project-Based Learning condition, and the 3rd-period class was assigned to the Standards-Based Learning condition. Students entered these two sections through the school’s routine scheduling process, which resolves timetable constraints and does not intentionally sort by prior achievement or demographics. While not strictly random, this process reduces the likelihood of systematic differences between sections.

Table 1

Table 1. Comparison of project-based and standards-based budgeting lessons.

Parents were informed about the study and provided their consent. Students provided informed assent (See Ethics Statement below). At the outset, students were introduced to the unit objectives, which covered budgeting concepts including income, expenses, fixed and variable costs, needs versus wants, and trade-offs. The unit was framed as a life skills activity rather than a graded assignment, and students were informed that their evaluation results would not impact their grades.

Instruction in both conditions was delivered through Nearpod, a standardized digital platform using pre-scripted, automated materials with minimal teacher intervention.

In the Project-Based Learning condition, students completed a simulation to design a class trip under a fixed USD 1,000 budget (see Figure 2 and Table 1). After each instructional video, they selected options in categories such as travel, food, activities, and lodging from the Activities List, calculated total expenses on the Budgeting Sheet, determined whether there was a surplus or deficit, and then revised their plans following a simulated budget reduction to $ 400. Trade-offs, prioritization, and needs versus wants were reinforced through brief peer discussion and structured reflection after tasks.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Students in the PBL (experimental) group were instructed to start planning their class trip. Following this activity, students completed the budgeting sheet and worked with a partner to categorize their chosen expenses as fixed or variable.

In the Standards-Based Learning condition, students were taught through recorded PowerPoint-style lectures that presented budgeting concepts in a structured, sequential manner. Content delivery was teacher-directed and aligned to specific standards, emphasizing definitions, examples, and procedures. Following each lecture, students completed corresponding practice activities consisting of multiple-choice and short-answer questions, designed to reinforce factual knowledge and procedural understanding rather than open-ended application.

2.3 Measures

2.3.1 Financial competencies

Students completed a 12-item posttest in Microsoft Forms that included seven multiple-choice items, three short-answer definitions, and two scenario-based open responses. Items targeted (1) conceptual knowledge, (2) categorical reasoning, and (3) applied budgeting decisions, all aligned to lesson objectives. All students received the same test across the Project-Based Learning and Standards-Based Learning groups, and no prior budgeting knowledge was assumed or measured. Multiple-choice items were auto-scored via preset answer keys.

Open-ended responses (five items) were scored using a rubric developed by the research team assessing accuracy, correct use of budgeting vocabulary, and logical financial reasoning. To standardize scoring, the rubric was implemented via the ChatGPT large language model (OpenAI; GPT-4-series, accessed via the ChatGPT interface in July 2025) using a fixed prompt. The model did not have access to students’ experimental condition, class period, or any identifying information. No independent human coding or human–AI inter-rater reliability estimates were obtained; therefore, findings involving open-ended items are considered exploratory.

A small pilot with five middle school students was conducted to refine wording and instructions prior to implementation. The full measure was created by the research team and reviewed by instructional staff to establish face and content validity.

2.3.2 Secondary outcome

Perceived confidence measure was captured with a single item at the end of the test (“How confident are you in your budgeting skills?”) rated from 1 to 10. This confidence rating was analyzed separately from cognitive outcomes.

2.4 Administration and data handling

The assessment was administered digitally during class, and all responses were anonymized prior to analysis.

2.5 Attrition and data analysis

The primary analysis used the aggregated posttest score (0–12), comprising seven multiple-choice items and five open-response items. Multiple-choice responses were automatically scored in Microsoft Forms using a standardized answer key. Open responses were scored using an AI-based rubric developed by the research team to capture accuracy, correct use of budgeting vocabulary, and quality of reasoning.

Of the 63 enrolled students (PBL = 32; SBL = 31), 48 completed the posttest and were included in the analytic sample (PBL = 23; SBL = 25). For open-response items, partial completion was retained; aggregated scores were computed row-wise with missing open-response values ignored (na.rm. = TRUE). Students absent for one or more intervention sessions were encouraged to complete the posttest independently; students who did not complete the posttest were not included in analyses.

Although overall attrition was moderate (15 of 63 students), it was similar across conditions (PBL: 9/32; SBL: 6/31), reducing concerns about differential attrition.

2.6 Analytic strategy

The primary outcome was the aggregated posttest score (0–12 = 7 MCQ + 5 open-ended). For open-ended items, partial completion was retained and row-wise scores were computed ignoring missing responses (na.rm. = TRUE). Because randomization occurred at the class level with two intact sections (k = 2), we quantified clustering via the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and interpret student-level inferences as descriptive/exploratory. Group differences on the primary outcome were tested with Welch’s t (two-tailed, α = 0.05), and effect sizes were reported as Hedges’ g with 95% CIs (coded so that positive values favor PBL). Secondary analyses examined the MCQ and open-ended components separately; no multiplicity correction was applied. The single-item confidence measure was analyzed analogously and is treated as exploratory. Students who did not take the posttest were excluded; partial completion of open-ended items was retained (row-wise scoring with missing values ignored).

3 Results

The Project-Based Learning intervention improved budgeting competence, as reflected in higher combined scores on the multiple-choice and open-ended items (Figure 3). The intraclass correlation coefficient (k = 2, ICC = 0.22) indicated that about 22% of the variance in posttest scores was attributable to class-level clustering (two sections); therefore, student-level analyses are interpreted as exploratory. A Welch’s independent-samples t-test comparing the Project-Based Learning (PBL, n = 23) and Standards-Based Learning (SBL, n = 25) conditions showed that PBL students performed significantly better (PBL: M = 6.65, SD = 1.40, vs. SBL: M = 5.64, SD = 1.13), t(42.39) = 2.74, p = 0.009. This difference represented a large effect, Hedges’ g = 0.78, 95% CI [0.19, 1.36], with positive values indicating higher performance in the PBL condition.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Benefits of the project-based learning intervention condition compared to the standards-based learning control condition. Positive Hedges’ g values indicate higher performance in PBL. Aggregate scores incorporate partial open-ended completion (na.rm., TRUE).

Similar patterns were observed when analyzing the components separately. For the multiple-choice items, Welch’s t(42.35) = 2.37, p = 0.022, and for the open-ended responses, Welch’s t(41.86) = 2.55, p = 0.015, both favoring the Project-Based Learning condition.

The single-item confidence measure did not differ significantly between conditions (p > 0.10) and is therefore not discussed further.

4 Discussion

This small-scale study aimed to evaluate whether Project-Based Learning would yield stronger outcomes in middle school financial literacy compared to Standards-Based Learning. Consistent with our hypothesis, students in the Project-Based Learning condition significantly outperformed their peers in the Standards-Based Learning condition on both multiple-choice and open-ended posttest assessments. The effect sizes were relatively large, indicating not only statistical but also educationally meaningful differences. Furthermore, students in the Project-Based Learning group demonstrated stronger application of vocabulary to real-world budgeting scenarios, suggesting that authentic engagement supports both comprehension and reasoning. These results align with prior findings that Project-Based Learning enhances conceptual understanding and application across subject areas (Holm, 2011; Brush and Saye, 2008), while extending them into the underexplored domain of financial literacy.

These findings add to the literature on instructional design by providing preliminary causal evidence that the way financial literacy is taught can meaningfully alter learning outcomes. Prior studies of Standards-Based Learning highlight its ability to ensure vocabulary mastery and structured progression (Marzano, 2003), yet critics caution that it can limit opportunities for application (Au, 2007). Our results suggest that while Standards-Based Learning may succeed in transmitting definitions, Project-Based Learning better equips students to navigate trade-offs, needs versus wants, and surplus/deficit reasoning—skills emphasized by the Government Finance Officers Association (2025) as central to budgeting. Importantly, this study directly addresses the limitation of earlier Project-Based Learning evaluations that relied on observational or pre-post designs (Holm, 2011; Strobel and van Barneveld, 2009). By using randomized assignment, albeit at the class level, this research provides a more rigorous test of constructivist approaches in financial education.

For practitioners, the results highlight the practicality and value of embedding financial literacy in project-based tasks. The intervention required only three class sessions, used pre-scripted digital materials, and demanded minimal teacher facilitation. Yet it produced measurable gains in both knowledge and application. This demonstrates that Project-Based Learning can be implemented without extensive restructuring of curriculum or teacher workload. In contexts where financial literacy instruction is limited or absent, such models may offer a scalable and cost-effective solution. These findings build on calls from Kaiser and Menkhoff (2020) for innovative interventions that not only raise knowledge but also improve decision-making capacity. They also resonate with earlier evidence that Project-Based Learning particularly benefits disengaged or underserved populations (Railsback, 2002), positioning it as a promising strategy to reduce inequities in access to effective financial education.

Despite its contributions, the study is constrained by several limitations. Because the study involved only two intact class sections (with only two clusters, k = 2), the ICC (0.22)—indicating that about 22% of the variance was attributable to class-level differences—suggested notable clustering; therefore, student-level inferences should be considered descriptive and exploratory rather than confirmatory. Furthermore, the small sample size drawn from a single school limits generalizability, and the findings are not representative of broader populations. We used this method in a single educational and cultural context, which may not translate across settings. Additionally, randomization occurred at the class level with only two sections, which increases the risk of class-level confounds despite scheduling procedures that balanced demographics. We did not collect socioeconomic data, so we cannot account for potential individual-level or contextual moderators. Not every student in every context may benefit equally from Project-Based Learning. Furthermore, we did not measure long-term outcomes, leaving it unclear whether gains in budgeting comprehension persist beyond the immediate posttest. Finally, we did not assess student motivation, which, as Gallup (2018, 2024) notes, plays a critical role in middle school engagement and may have interacted with learning outcomes.

Future research should extend this design to larger and more diverse populations, including schools in different socioeconomic and geographic contexts. Longitudinal studies are needed to examine whether budgeting skills taught through Project-Based Learning persist beyond the classroom and transfer into students’ personal financial decision-making. Comparative studies should also test hybrid instructional models that integrate the clarity and structure of Standards-Based Learning (Marzano, 2003) with the authenticity and decision-driven nature of Project-Based Learning. Such designs may address critiques that Project-Based Learning lacks standardization while still capitalizing on its motivational and applied strengths (Strobel and van Barneveld, 2009). Importantly, this study advances beyond earlier calls for comparative research between instructional models (Thomas, 2000) and complements prior experimental work where budgeting was embedded in broader economic simulations rather than isolated as the central outcome (Batty et al., 2020). Finally, refining measurement tools to include multi-item self-efficacy scales and standardized financial literacy benchmarks, as suggested by Kaiser and Menkhoff (2020), would strengthen both validity and comparability of outcomes.

5 Conclusion

This study presents one of the first small-scale, class-randomized controlled tests of Project-Based Learning in middle school financial literacy, providing evidence that authentic, decision-driven instruction leads to stronger comprehension and application than traditional, standards-based lectures. By demonstrating that even a short intervention can produce meaningful gains, it underscores the importance of how content is taught, not just what is taught. For educators and policymakers seeking to address the dual challenges of financial illiteracy and student disengagement, Project-Based Learning represents a promising, classroom-ready pathway to equip young learners with the budgeting skills essential for lifelong financial well-being.

5.1 Contribution to the field statement

Financial literacy is vital for sustainable development, yet many middle school students remain disengaged and underprepared. This study offers one of the first randomized controlled trials comparing Project-Based Learning (PBL) and Standards-Based Learning (SBL) in financial education. Results show that even a brief, three-session PBL intervention significantly improved students’ comprehension and application of budgeting concepts, outperforming SBL with a large effect size. Importantly, the project was initiated and led by a high school student under academic supervision, demonstrating that rigorous, youth-driven research can produce findings of genuine relevance. The work highlights both a scalable instructional model for financial literacy and an inspiring example of how empowering young researchers contributes to educational leadership and innovation in sustainable development.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by Sarah Kim (Nurse), Bellevue High School; Alicia Kallay (Curriculum Developer), Tillicum Middle School; Lori Alexander (Psychology Teacher), Bellevue High School. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The ethics committee/institutional review board waived the requirement of written informed consent for participation from the participants or the participants’ legal guardians/next of kin because the study posed minimal risk, involved no collection of identifiable personal data, and all responses were anonymized. Participation occurred within normal classroom instruction, minimizing disruption and protecting student rights. All participating students provided written informed assent prior to participation, while parents were notified of the study through email and given the opportunity to opt their child out (passive consent).

Author contributions

IM: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Visualization. GO: Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Visualization, Writing – original draft.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Generative AI was used in two limited capacities. First, it assisted with language refinement during manuscript preparation by improving grammar, clarity, and conciseness. Second, an AI model (ChatGPT, OpenAI) was employed to score the five open-response post-test items according to a rubric emphasizing accuracy, vocabulary, and reasoning. To ensure validity, I personally reviewed and spot-checked responses against the rubric and confirmed consistency before incorporating scores into the analysis. All aspects of study design, data collection, statistical testing, interpretation, and manuscript writing were conducted independently by me. I have verified all AI-assisted contributions and take full responsibility for the content of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2026.1695476/full#supplementary-material

References

Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: a qualitative metasynthesis. Educ. Res. 36, 258–267. doi: 10.3102/0013189X07306523

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Batty, M., Collins, J. M., and Odders-White, E. (2020). Experimental evidence on the effects of financial education on elementary school students’ knowledge, behavior, and attitudes. J. Consum. Aff. 54, 395–429. doi: 10.1111/joca.12257

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Boaler, J. (1999). Mathematics for the moment, or the millennium? Educ. Week, 18, 30–32. Available online at: https://www.edweek.org/education/opinion-mathematics-for-the-moment-or-the-millennium/1999/03 (Accessed August 27, 2025).

Google Scholar

Bruhn, M., de Souza Leão, L., Legovini, A., Marchetti, R., and Zia, B. (2016). The impact of high school financial education: experimental evidence from Brazil. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 8, 256–295. doi: 10.1257/app.20150149

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Brush, T., and Saye, J. (2008). The effects of multimedia-supported problem-based inquiry on student engagement, empathy, and assumptions about history. Interdiscip. J. Probl.-Based Learn. 2, 19–50. doi: 10.7771/1541-5015.1052

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Buck Institute for Education. (2021). What is PBL? PBLWorks. Available online at: https://www.pblworks.org/what-is-pbl (Accessed August 27, 2025).

Google Scholar

Condliffe, B., Quint, J., Visher, M. G., Bangser, M. R., Drohojowska, S., Saco, L., et al. (2017). Project-based Learning: A Literature Review, Working paper. New York, NY: MDRC. Available online at: https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/Project-Based_Learning-LitRev_Final.pdf (Accessed August 27, 2025).

Google Scholar

Council for Economic Education. (2024). Survey of the States: Economic and Personal Finance Education in our Nation’s Schools. New York, NY: Council for Economic Education. Available online at: https://www.councilforeconed.org/wp-content/uploads/survey-of-states-2024.pdf (Accessed August 27, 2025).

Google Scholar

Finkelstein, N., Hanson, T., Huang, C. W., Hirschman, B., and Huang, M. (2010). Effects of Problem-based Economics on High school Economics Instruction (NCEE 2010–4002). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Available online at: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104002/ (Accessed August 27, 2025).

Google Scholar

Gallup. 2018. School engagement is more than just talk. Gallup News. Available online at: https://www.gallup.com/education/244022/school-engagement-talk.aspx (Accessed August 27, 2025).

Google Scholar

Gallup. (2024). K-12 schools struggle to engage Gen Z students. Gallup News. Available online at: https://news.gallup.com/poll/648896/schools-struggle-engage-gen-students.aspx (Accessed August 27, 2025).

Google Scholar

Government Finance Officers Association. (2025). The steps of the budget process. GFOA Resources. Available online at: https://www.gfoa.org/long-form/the-steps-of-the-budget-process (Accessed August 27, 2025).

Google Scholar

Holm, M. (2011). Project-based instruction: a review of the literature on effectiveness in prekindergarten through 12th grade classrooms. InSight Rivier Acad. J. 7, 1–13.

Google Scholar

Kaiser, T., and Menkhoff, L. (2020). Financial education in schools: a meta-analysis of experimental studies. Econ. Educ. Rev. 78:101930. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2019.101930

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lambert, N. (2012). Ban happy sheets! Understanding and using evaluation. Nurse Educ. Today 32, 1–4. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2011.03.013,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lee, V. E., and Ready, D. D. (2009). U.S. high school curriculum: three phases of contemporary research and reform. Futur. Child. 19, 135–156. doi: 10.1353/foc.0.0028,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lusardi, A., and Mitchell, O. S. (2014). The economic importance of financial literacy: theory and evidence. J. Econ. Lit. 52, 5–44. doi: 10.1257/jel.52.1.5,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mandell, L., and Klein, L. S. (2009). The impact of financial literacy education on subsequent financial behavior. J. Financ. Couns. Plann. 20, 15–24.

Google Scholar

Marzano, R. J. (2000). Transforming Classroom Grading. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Google Scholar

Marzano, R. J. (2003). What Works in Schools: Translating Research into Action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Google Scholar

Railsback, J. (2002). Project-based instruction: Creating Excitement for Learning. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Google Scholar

Strobel, J., and van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdiscip. J. Probl. Based Learn. 3, 44–58. doi: 10.7771/1541-5015.1046

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Thomas, J. W. (2000). A Review of Research on Project-based Learning. San Rafael, CA: The Autodesk Foundation.

Google Scholar