Waking the sleeping giant: Beliefs of Brazilian and *American teachers concerning liberation curriculum

The school curriculum is a matter mandated by the educational system rather than determined by the school stakeholders of a community, as Freire (1993) suggests. At the present time, one significant vision of school is challenging the current order of curriculum practice. It focuses on school as a liberating agency grounded on the belief that the abilities to access information and to think critically about it will educate an individual capable of making independent decisions. This dissertation investigates teacher's beliefs concerning curriculum. It was assumed that there is a discrepancy between what has been the position proposed by critical theorists including Freire (1998a, 1993); Apple (1979); Giroux (1998), and the position on curriculum which school systems are typically advancing. ^ There were four purposes of this study. The major purpose of this study was to determine whether or not Brazilian and American Teachers believe that a school curriculum based on Freirean principles could be implemented in the schools in which they worked. Also, this study sought to determine the differences found between teachers' beliefs in the Brazilian and American contexts. Another purpose was to determine how Brazilian and American teachers justify their beliefs and actions when these may represent conflicting values. Finally, this study sought to determine if these teachers believe that the curriculum is in need of change or if they accept the current curriculum as adequate. This study consisted of quantitative and qualitative data collection through multiple methods involving surveys and interviews. The study involved 171 teachers (88 Brazilian and 83 American) from multiple settings with the majority working for public systems. Overall, it seems that Brazilian and American teachers believe that a curriculum based on Freirean principles of education can be implemented in their schools, if ongoing education is provided. The majority of Brazilian teachers believe a curriculum change is necessary while half of the American teachers believe a curriculum change is needed and the other half seems to believe curriculum is adequate. Teachers explain that it is hard to implement a curriculum they believe to be most appropriate for students because the current curriculum is mandated by the school system or by national guidelines. The majority of Brazilian teachers and those American teachers who believed a curriculum change is necessary explained their rationale for change in terms of social justice, problem-solving, collective work, student-centered and context-based curriculum. American teachers, who believed that the curriculum is adequate, explained that they are satisfied with their student's achievements. They stated that their students are doing well on tests and are learning what is required. ^

Social-cognitive antecedents of ambidextrous orientation in family-owned startups: The role of family ties, achievement motivation, and internal locus of control

Regulatory Focus Theory predicts that the motivation to self-regulate goal-directed thought and behavior depends on two distinct regulation strategies: a promotion focus based on attaining gains and a prevention focus based on avoiding losses. This study took a social-cognitive approach predicting that regulatory focus has an impact on how family startups (several family related founders) explore "new ideas", exploit "old certainties" and achieve the balance of both (ambidexterity), compared to lone founder startups (only one founder present). It was proposed that the social context of family ties among founders leads them to a prevention focus concerned with avoiding the loss of the socio-emotional benefits of those ties. In order to avoid such a loss, family founders were expected to increase their risk perceptions and thus, explore less than lone founders, who lack such socio-emotional ties. It was also proposed that two commonly used psychological traits in entrepreneurship research —achievement motivation and internal locus of control, predispose entrepreneurs to a promotion focus. Founders with a promotion focus, in turn, were hypothesized to lead startups to more risk-seeking behaviors and to more explorative orientation. The previous argument was used as a springboard to derive hypotheses about ambidexterity (the ability to exploit and explore simultaneously) and survival hazards. Using Regulatory Focus Theory, exploitative orientation, conceptualized as the motivational strength to continue on previous paths of action, was hypothesized to be not significantly different from that of lone founder startups. Taking previous arguments together, lone founder startups were hypothesized to be more ambidextrous than family startups. Finally, ambidexterity and internal locus of control were hypothesized to reduce survival hazards in family startups. The findings suggested that family startups explore less than lone founder startups even after controlling for group effects. Interesting but contradictory findings revealed that internal locus of control have both a positive direct effect and a positive interaction that increases the explorative and ambidextrous orientation gap of family startups over lone founder startups. As expected, ambidexterity and internal locus of control reduced survival hazards on family startups. Implications for practitioners were derived based on a sample of 470 nascent entrepreneurs.

Social-cognitive Antecedents of Ambidextrous Orientation in Family-owned Startups: The Role of Family Ties, Achievement Motivation, and Internal Locus of Control

Regulatory Focus Theory predicts that the motivation to self-regulate goal-directed thought and behavior depends on two distinct regulation strategies: a promotion focus based on attaining gains and a prevention focus based on avoiding losses. This study took a social-cognitive approach predicting that regulatory focus has an impact on how family startups (several family related founders) explore “new ideas”, exploit “old certainties” and achieve the balance of both (ambidexterity), compared to lone founder startups (only one founder present). It was proposed that the social context of family ties among founders leads them to a prevention focus concerned with avoiding the loss of the socio-emotional benefits of those ties. In order to avoid such a loss, family founders were expected to increase their risk perceptions and thus, explore less than lone founders, who lack such socio-emotional ties. It was also proposed that two commonly used psychological traits in entrepreneurship research --achievement motivation and internal locus of control, predispose entrepreneurs to a promotion focus. Founders with a promotion focus, in turn, were hypothesized to lead startups to more risk-seeking behaviors and to more explorative orientation. The previous argument was used as a springboard to derive hypotheses about ambidexterity (the ability to exploit and explore simultaneously) and survival hazards. Using Regulatory Focus Theory, exploitative orientation, conceptualized as the motivational strength to continue on previous paths of action, was hypothesized to be not significantly different from that of lone founder startups. Taking previous arguments together, lone founder startups were hypothesized to be more ambidextrous than family startups. Finally, ambidexterity and internal locus of control were hypothesized to reduce survival hazards in family startups. The findings suggested that family startups explore less than lone founder startups even after controlling for group effects. Interesting but contradictory findings revealed that internal locus of control have both a positive direct effect and a positive interaction that increases the explorative and ambidextrous orientation gap of family startups over lone founder startups. As expected, ambidexterity and internal locus of control reduced survival hazards on family startups. Implications for practitioners were derived based on a sample of 470 nascent entrepreneurs.