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. ^

Workplace Discrimination Climate and Team Effectiveness: The Mediating Role of Collective Value Congruence, Team Cohesion, and Collective Affective Commitment

This study explored the relationship between workplace discrimination climate on team effectiveness through three serial mediators: collective value congruence, team cohesion, and collective affective commitment. As more individuals of marginalized groups diversify the workforce and as more organizations move toward team-based work (Cannon-Bowers & Bowers, 2010), it is imperative to understand how employees perceive their organization’s discriminatory climate as well as its effect on teams. An archival dataset consisting of 6,824 respondents was used, resulting in 332 work teams with five or more members in each. The data were collected as part of an employee climate survey administered in 2011 throughout the United States’ Department of Defense. The results revealed that the indirect effect through M1 (collective value congruence) and M2 (team cohesion) best accounted for the relationship between workplace discrimination climate (X) and team effectiveness (Y). Meaning, on average, teams that reported a greater climate for workplace discrimination also reported less collective value congruence with their organization (a1 = -1.07, p < .001). With less shared perceptions of value congruence, there is less team cohesion (d21 = .45, p < .001), and with less team cohesion there is less team effectiveness (b2 = .57, p < .001). In addition, because of theoretical overlap, this study makes the case for studying workplace discrimination under the broader construct of workplace aggression within the I/O psychology literature. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis found that workplace discrimination based on five types of marginalized groups: race/ethnicity, gender, religion, age, and disability was best explained by a three-factor model, including: career obstruction based on age and disability bias (CO), verbal aggression based on multiple types of bias (VA), and differential treatment based on racial/ethnic bias (DT). There was initial support to claim that workplace discrimination items covary not only based on type, but also based on form (i.e., nonviolent aggressive behaviors). Therefore, the form of workplace discrimination is just as important as the type when studying climate perceptions and team-level effects. Theoretical and organizational implications are also discussed.