老师的交流可以通过各种文献，都是某种形式的合作拍摄（小1990；罗森霍兹，1989），如共享，提供意见，讨论工作，和合作。小（1990）认为，这种交流不仅仅是一个简单的活动的集合，而是“唯象的离散形式，从一个不同的程度，会导致相互的义务，使每个人的工作，别人的关注，并呼吁，容忍，或者在课程与教学方面的奖励倡议”（512页）。小（1990）地方各种合议形式对相互依存的一个维度，用讲故事的方式作为合议，需要低的相互依存和共同工作的一个例子，作为合议，涉及高相互依赖的一个例子。她提出，在这个维度上的一个转向增加的相互依存关系的频率和强度的变化，教师的相互作用和相互影响的可能性。此外，增加相互依存带来的集体自主和教师对教师主动性的要求越来越高（小，1990）。而这一维度的相互依存的关系可以作为一个宝贵的指导为代表的各种形式的社会关系在学校的球队，它尚未收到足够的经验的注意。鉴于社会网络的研究在教育的普及，以问题形式的“合议”渗透到日常实践的教师比以往任何时候都更相关的无定形的概念。
新西兰历史作业代写:老师的交流
Teacher-to-teacher exchange can be captured by a variety of references that all refer to some form of collegiality (Little, 1990; Rosenholtz, 1989), such as sharing, giving advice, discussing work, and collaborating. Little (1990) argues that these exchanges are not just a straightforward collection of activities, but rather ‘phenomenologically discrete forms that vary from one another in the degree to which they induce mutual obligation, expose the work of each person to the scrutiny of others, and call for, tolerate, or reward initiative in matters of curriculum and instruction' (p. 512). Little (1990) places various collegial forms on a dimension of mutual interdependence, with storytelling as an example of collegiality that entails low mutual interdependence, and joint work as an example of collegiality that involves high interdependence. She poses that a shift on this dimension toward increased interdependence relates to changes in the frequency and intensity of teachers' interactions and the likelihood of mutual influence. Moreover, increased interdependence poses rising demands for collective autonomy and teacher-to-teacher initiative (Little, 1990). While this dimension of mutual interdependence could serve as a valuable guide in typifying various forms of social relationships in school teams, it has not yet received much empirical attention. Given the popularity of social network studies in education, the question in which forms the amorphous concept of ‘collegiality' permeates teachers' daily practice is more relevant than ever before.
