second-Grade Classroom Scenario As Miss Gibson’s second-graders break out into their learning centers, a scuffle starts in the writing center. Two boys are shoving and pushing each other. Miss Gibson stops the class and yells, “Boys, stop!’ Instead of stopping, the boys continue to shove and push each other. Aaron, the most vocal of the two boys, starts yelling, “Tony took the red marker!” Tony denies it. Soon the boys are shouting at each other. The rest of the class stands around watching and no one has started working in their center. Answer the following questions in relation to the scenario: 1. What level of mutual respect exists between students and the teacher in this scenario? How did mutual respect affect the classroom dynamics? How would you improve mutual respect in this classroom? 2. How well did the teacher handle himself or herself in the scenario? What student—teacher interactions worked well and what did not work? How would you handle the situation? 3. What, if any, communication roadblocks are evident in this classroom? How could you remove the communication roadblocks? How would you communicate with the students to resolve this situation? 4. What conflicts did you observe in this classroom? What conflict resolution methods could you use to resolve the conflicts in this classroom? Are there any peer mediation methods that you could use in this scenario? 5. What changes would you make to help this classroom become more of a community? Why would developing this classroom into a community be important?
Considering the abovementioned, it appears that there are two deciding elements in working out whether the lawmaker's declarations undermine the right to speak freely. Right off the bat, what contention one uses to legitimize a right to speak freely guideline and also, what the reactions that that the government official calls 'counterfeit news' identify with. In the event that one uses the contention from majority rules system and self-administration, on the off chance that the reactions identify with political articulation, at that point the calls of 'counterfeit news' will undermine the right to speak freely. In the event that one uses the contention from truth and information, on the off chance that the reactions could be unbiasedly tried, at that point the calls of 'counterfeit news' would undermine the right to speak freely. For the above thinking, it appears to be likely that his faultfinders are making such reactions. To address the article question all the more solidly, one would in a perfect world have the capacity to recognize one of the numerous contentions for a free discourse standard as the 'best' or 'right' one. In any case, as appeared, the two contentions that I have featured have their shortcomings. The contention from majority rules system and self-government does not address the issue that for a general public to be genuinely self-administering, there can't be any cutoff points on their sway, for example, a free discourse rule keeping them from controlling discourse. The contention from truth wrongly accept that reality will dependably be the most astounding worth open great and that the accessibility of the considerable number of suppositions will make the fact of the matter be found. From the abovementioned, it is hard to presume that there is a solitary defense for a right to speak freely rule, from which we could choose whether or not the government official's declarations undermined free discourse. Different speculations legitimize a right to speak freely guideline based on verifying and advancing human poise and equality, or autonomy. These, be that as it may, are not free from analysis either. It is in this way troublesome for one to state which contention for a free discourse guideline is the 'best' or 'right' one, and thusly hard to state whether the government official's attestations would undermine the right to speak freely. A clarification for this trouble can be found in crafted by Stanley Fish who broadly proclaims that there is 'no such thing as free speech'. His contention is that the right to speak freely is 'not an autonomous esteem, however a political prize'. There is no 'regular substance' to opportunity of speech. Rather, it is given a substance that fills the political need of the individual conjuring it. The right to speak freely, for Fish, is certifiably not a general rule however one comprehended by the avoidances that give it its importance. For instance, saying all discourse is endured separated>GET ANSWER