Affiliation:
1. RTU Riga Business School
Abstract
Fintech is one of the most talked about topics in the finance industry in this era. Still, the change or increase in the market share of fintech companies is relatively small compared to that of other conventional financial services. To help the fintech industry, universities with academicians can play a vital role by introducing fintech-specific content. The most essential element in teaching fintech-specific content is teaching finance and technology (Hendershott et al., 2021). Regarding this, during the last few years, many top universities have taught fintech-specific courses in undergraduate, graduate, and executive programs. This content seeks to prepare specialists from the field who can strengthen the fintech industry better. For now, no specific curriculum or teaching format is taught by fintech as this is a fast-changing industry, and the curriculum needs to be adapted accordingly (Thomas & Milner, 2023). The authors are interested in understanding the critical elements regarding the content that must be introduced in these programs. This paper aims to build a structure for the universities to follow if they want to teach courses in fintech-specific content. To achieve this goal, the authors will collect information and conduct the content analysis on the profile of fintech-specific offered by the top 20 universities in the world and on the literature focusing on fintech-specific content. In addition, there will be a discussion on the pedagogical approaches suggested for higher education institutions building interdisciplinary programs like fintech-specific content programs.
Subject
Strategy and Management,Economics and Econometrics,Finance
Reference66 articles.
1. Ackerman, D., & Perkins, D. N. (1989). Integrating thinking and learning skills across the curriculum. In H. H. Jacobs (Ed.), Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation (pp. 25–38). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
2. Acton, W. H., Johnson, P. J., & Goldsmith, T. E. (1994). Structural knowledge assessment: Comparison of referent structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 303–311. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.2.303
3. Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89(4), 369–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.89.4.369
4. Asif, M., Sheeraz, M., & Sacco, S. J. (2022). Evaluating the impact of technological tools on the academic performance of English language learners at tertiary level: A pilot investigation. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 12(1), 272–282. https://doi.org/10.47750/pegegog.12.01.28
5. Autury, L. L., & Walker, M. E. (2011). Artistic representation: Promoting student creativity and self-reflection. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 6(1), 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/15401383.2011.560076