Ang n a g p ak a sa l ay tumutukoy sa taong naging punong-abala o siyang nangasiwaupang makasal ang isang lalaki at babae. Mga halimbawa: a.

Ang mag-asawa ayna g pak a sa l ng anak na panganay. b. Si Aling Luisa ayn a g p aka sa l ng pamangking binata sapagkat ulila ito. c. Ang mayamang babae ayn a g p aka sa l ng mga lalaki at babaeng nagsasama nang hindi d.Na g p ak a sa l si Aling Mercy ng kamag-anak na maralita.
Napakasal at Nagpakasal Napakasal Ginagamit ang n a p ak a sa l kapag ang tinutukoy ay ang ginagawang pag-iisang dibdib ng dalawang nilalang ng

nagmamahalan. Mga halimbawa: a.Na p ak a sa l na sina Alex at Rhoda na malaon nang magkasintahan. b. Si Vilma ayn a p ak a sa l sa sarili niyang kapasyahan. c. Kailann a p ak a sa l sina Danny at Lota? d.Na p ak a sa l ka na nga bas a iyong katipan.

Napakasal- Napakasal sina Mara at Don sa simbahan ng bagong pag-asa. Nagpakasa- Nagpakasal sina Maria at Eduardo kay Padre Timoteo na kanilang kakilala at kaibigan.
nagpakasal - si father Arnold ang nagpakasal sa amin. napakasal- napakasal na sina Jhoy ate Ruben. - Nagpakasal ang kapatid ko kahapon sa Maynila. - Napakasal ang mag nobyo sa di tamang panahon. Cognitivism: Cognitivism deviates from behaviorism in that it deals with the internal mental processes of the mind and how these processes could be used to endorse effective learning. Behaviorism breaks tasks into small steps and/or chunks, which are then used to shape the learner s behavior. In cognitivism the tasks are first analyzed and then broken down into steps. These chunks of information are then used to enlarge learning in instructional design curriculum. Information is then organized and delivered or taught from the most simple to the most complex depending on the learner s prior schema or knowledge. Dewey, Piaget, Vygotsky, and Gagne are a few of the theorists associated with cognitivism. In instructional design curriculum, cognitivism plays an important role in organizing information, using metaphors and arranging information from simple to complex

Cognitivism
Based on the thought process behind the behavior. Changes in behavior are observed, but only as an indicator to what is going on in the learner's head. Schema An internal knowledge structure. A person adjusts his mental model to incorporate new experiences and make sense of this new information. A person's schema is constantly readjusting.

Why study the motion of freely falling bodies?

In Galileo's attack on the Aristotelian cosmology, few details were actually new. However, his approach and his findings together provided the first coherent presentation of the science of motion. Galileo realized that, out of all the observable motions in nature, free-fall motion is the key to the understanding of all motions of all bodies. To decide which is the key phenomenon to study is the real gift of genius. But Galileo is also in many ways typical of scientists in general. His approach to the problem of motion makes a good "case" to be used in the following sections as an opportunity to discuss strategies of inquiry that are still used in science. These are some of the reasons why we study in detail Galileo's attack on the problem of free fall. Galileo himself recognized another reason-that the study of motion which he proposed was only the starting phase of a mighty field of discovery: My purpose is to set forth a very new science dealing with a very ancient subject. There is, in nature, perhaps nothing older than motion, concerning which the books written by philosophers are neither few nor small; nevertheless, I have discovered some properties of it that are worth knowing that have not hitherto been either observed or demonstrated. Some superficial observations have been made, as for instance, that the natural motion of a heavy falling body is continuously accelerated; but to just what extent this acceleration occurs has not yet been announced .... Other facts, not few in number or less worth knowing I have succeeded in proving; and, what I consider more important, there have been opened up to this vast and most excellent science, of which my work is merely the beginning, ways and means by which other minds more acute than mine will explore its remote corners.

Galileo chooses a definition of uniform acceleration

Two New Sciences deals directly with the motion of freely falling bodies. In studying the following paragraphs from it, we must be alert to Galileo's overall plan. First, he discusses the mathematics of a possible, simple type of motion (which we now call uniform acceleration or constant acceleration). Then he proposes that heavy bodies actually fall in just that way. Next, on the basis of this proposal, he derives a prediction about balls rolling down an incline. Finally, he shows that experiments bear out these predictions. By Aristotelian cosmology is meant the whole interlocking set of ideas about the structure of the physical universe and the behavior of all the objects in it. In fact, more than mere "superficial observations" had been made long before Galileo set to work. For example, Nicolas Oresme and others at the University of Paris had by 1330 discovered the same distance time relationship for falling bodies that Galileo was to announce in the Two New Sciences. It will help you to have a plan clearly in mind as you progress through the rest of this chapter. As you study each succeeding section, ask yourself whether Galileo is

-presenting a definition -stating an assumption (or hypothesis) -deducing predictions from his hypothesis -experimentally testing the predictions

Free Fall-Galileo Describes Motion

The first part of Galileo's presentation is a thorough discussion of motion with uniform speed, ... This is sometimes known as the Rule of Parsimony: unless forced to do otherwise, assume the simplest possible hypothesis to explain natural events. Rephrasing Gallieo and using our symbols: for motion with uniform speed v, the ratio Dd/Dt is constant. Similarly, recall that for accelerated motion, we defined uniform acceleration as (( a=Dv/Dt=constant a=(v/(t=constant Other ways of expressing this relationship are discussed. That leads to the second part, where we find Salviati saying: We pass now to . . . naturally accelerated motion, such as that generally experienced by heavy falling bodies . . . . in the investigation of naturally accelerated motion we were led, by hand as it were, in following the habit and custom of nature herself, in all her various other processes, to employ only those means which are most common, simple and easy . . . When, therefore, I observe a stone initially at rest falling from an elevated position and continually acquiring new increments of speed, why should I not believe that such increases take place in a manner which is exceedingly simple and rather obvious to everybody? If now we examine the matter carefully we find no addition or increment more simple than that which repeats itself always in the same manner. This we readily understand when we consider the intimate relationship between time and motion; for just as uniformity of motion is defined by and conceived through equal times and equal spaces (thus we call a motion uniform when equal distances are traversed during equal time-intervals), so also we may, in a similar manner, through equal time intervals, conceive additions of speed as taking place without complication .... Hence the definition of motion which we are about to discuss may be stated as follows:

The motion of falling objects

a / Galileo dropped a cannonball and a musketball simultaneously from a tower, and observed that they hit the ground at nearly the same time. This contradicted Aristotle's long-accepted idea that heavier objects fell faster.

c / The v-t graph of a falling object is a line.

d / Galileo's experiments show that all falling objects have the same motion if air resistance is negligible.

e / 1. Aristotle said that heavier objects fell faster than lighter ones. 2. If two rocks are tied together, that makes an extra- heavy rock, which should fall faster. 3. But Aristotle's theory would also predict that the light rock would hold back the heavy rock, resulting in a slower fall. The motion of falling objects is the simplest and most common example of motion with changing velocity. The early pioneers of physics had a correct intuition that the way things drop was a message directly from Nature herself about how the universe worked. Other examples seem less likely to have deep significance. A walking person who speeds up is making a conscious choice. If one stretch of a river flows more rapidly than another, it may be only because the channel is narrower there, which is just an accident of the local geography. But there is something impressively consistent, universal, and inexorable about the way things fall. Stand up now and simultaneously drop a coin and a bit of paper side by side. The paper takes much longer to hit the ground. That's why Aristotle wrote that heavy objects fell more rapidly. Europeans believed him for two thousand years. Now repeat the experiment, but make it into a race between the coin and your shoe. My own shoe is about 50 times heavier than the nickel I had handy, but it looks to me like they hit the ground at exactly the same moment. So much for Aristotle! Galileo, who had a flair for the theatrical, did the experiment by dropping a bullet and a heavy cannonball from a tall tower. Aristotle's observations had been incomplete, his interpretation a vast oversimplification.

It is inconceivable that Galileo was the first person to observe a discrepancy with Aristotle's predictions. Galileo was the one who changed the course of history because he was able to assemble the observations into a coherent pattern, and also because he carried out systematic quantitative (numerical) measurements rather than just describing things qualitatively. Why is it that some objects, like the coin and the shoe, have similar motion, but others, like a feather or a bit of paper, are different? Galileo speculated that in addition to the force that always pulls objects down, there was an upward force exerted by the air. Anyone can speculate, but Galileo went beyond speculation and came up with two clever experiments to probe the issue. First, he experimented with objects falling in water, which probed the same issues but made the motion slow enough that he could take time measurements with a primitive pendulum clock. With this technique, he established the following facts:
y

All heavy, streamlined objects (for example a steel rod dropped point-down) reach the bottom of the tank in about the same amount of time, only slightly longer than the time they would take to fall the same distance in air. Objects that are lighter or less streamlined take a longer time to reach the bottom.

This supported his hypothesis about two contrary forces. He imagined an idealized situation in which the falling object did not have to push its way through any substance at all. Falling in air would be more like this ideal case than falling in water, but even a thin, sparse medium like air would be sufficient to cause obvious effects on feathers and other light objects that were not streamlined. Today, we have vacuum pumps that allow us to suck nearly all the air out of a chamber, and if we drop a feather and a rock side by side in a vacuum, the feather does not lag behind the rock at all.

How the speed of a falling object increases with time

Galileo's second stroke of genius was to find a way to make quantitative measurements of how the speed of a falling object increased as it went along. Again it was problematic to make sufficiently accurate time measurements with primitive clocks, and again he found a tricky way to slow things down while preserving the essential physical phenomena: he let a ball roll down a slope instead of dropping it vertically. The steeper the incline, the more rapidly the ball would gain speed. Without a modern video camera, Galileo had invented a way to make a slow-motion version of falling.

b / Velocity increases more gradually on the gentle slope, but the motion is otherwise the same as the motion of a falling object.

Although Galileo's clocks were only good enough to do accurate experiments at the smaller angles, he was confident after making a systematic study at a variety of small angles that his basic conclusions were generally valid. Stated in modern language, what he found was that the velocity-versus-time graph was a line. In the language of algebra, we know that a line has an equation of the form y=ax+b, but our variables are v and t, so it would be v=at+b. (The constant b can be interpreted simply as the initial velocity of the object, i.e., its velocity at the time when we started our clock, which we conventionally write as vo.) self-check: An object is rolling down an incline. After it has been rolling for a short time, it is found to travel 13 cm during a certain one-second interval. During the second after that, if goes 16 cm. How many cm will it travel in the second after that? (answer in the back of the PDF version of the book)

A contradiction in Aristotle's reasoning

Galileo's inclined-plane experiment disproved the long-accepted claim by Aristotle that a falling object had a definite natural falling speed proportional to its weight. Galileo had found that the speed just kept on increasing, and weight was irrelevant as long as air friction was negligible. Not only did Galileo prove experimentally that Aristotle had been wrong, but he also pointed out a logical contradiction in Aristotle's own reasoning. Simplicio, the stupid character, mouths the accepted Aristotelian wisdom: Simplicio: There can be no doubt but that a particular body ... has a fixed velocity which is determined by nature... Salviati: If then we take two bodies whose natural speeds are different, it is clear that, [according to Aristotle], on uniting the two, the more rapid one will be partly held back by the slower, and the slower will be somewhat hastened by the swifter. Do you not agree with me in this opinion? Simplicio: You are unquestionably right.

Second language acquisition (SLA) refers to both the process and study of developing the ability to use a language other than the native tongue. Research focuses on the extent to which people coming to a second or subsequent language (L2, L3 and so on) develop competence in the language like that of a native speaker, and how similar the acquisition process is to first language acquisition. Where differences are identified, researchers seek to explain what is responsible - for example, whether there is a biologically-based 'critical period' that prevents acquisition after a certain age, or what social or psychological factors, such as exposure to written language, may account for non-nativelike attainment. Though the study of SLA is often viewed as part of applied linguistics, it is typically concerned with the language system and learning processes themselves, whereas applied linguistics may focus more on the experiences of the learner, particularly in the classroom. Additionally, SLA has mostly examined naturalistic acquisition, where learners acquire a language with little formal training or teaching.

In vestigating second language acquisition

Three fundamental issues in SLA today are:
y y y

The extent to which the acquisition of a second language is similar to L1 acquisition; Why ultimate attainment in a second language typically falls short of a native speaker's competence (fossilisation); Why second language performance and ultimate attainment are highly variable across native language, context of acquisition and individual speakers.

Contrastive analysis
Modern research on L2 acquisition is rooted in contrastive analysis, a viewpoint popular in the 1950s and which sought to explain and predict errors in language learning based on a comparison of the grammar and phonology of the learner's L1 versus the 'target' L2. Though contrastive analysis mostly gave way to theories of L2 acquisition that better-reflected new insights from modern linguistics, psychology and education, it continues to be a tool for spotting potential problems for teaching in the classroom, and as a potential explanation for errors in naturalistic performance - i.e. the understanding and production of spontaneous language by learners.

Error analysis
Error analysis was a component of contrastive analysis, sometimes known as the 'weak' version of the contrastive analysis hypothesis. The 'strong' version sought to predict rather than explain errors, using the differences between the learners' first and second languages.

Critical period hypothesis

For more information, see: critical period hypothesis. A widespread view of second language acquisition is that the ability to fluently use an L2 is lost or significantly declines once a learner is beyond a certain age. This phenomenon is particularly noted in L2 phonology and pronunciation, where it said that it is difficult or impossible for older learners to gain a 'perfect' or even reasonably native-like L2 accent. In the terminology of SLA research, learners usually fossilise, i.e. stop somewhere short of nativelike proficiency, with their subsequent performance apparently impervious to correction. In actuality, this issue is possibly the most disputed in all of SLA, with some researchers, particularly in applied linguistics, backing the view that a biologically-based 'critical period' for L2 acquisition exists, with others, often with a background in formal linguistics, pointing to other factors outside the maturation of the body and brain as potential explanations.

Literacy and language acquisition

The effect of literacy on language acquisition has become a focal point of research, particularly since the 1990s. Literacy usually helps learning, such as by providing greater access to new vocabulary through written information,[1] and learners who read a lot do better on judging the grammaticality of sentences.[2] Literacy is gradually being identified as a key factor in language processing skills, i.e. literacy positively and negatively affects how well people interpret grammatical patterns, acquire the accent of another language, or perform in tasks involving the manipulation of linguistic utterances. This may account for some of the effects of the critical period hypothesis, for example.[3]

Effect of literacy on second language phonology

Studies have revealed evidence of a negative effect of (often alphabetic) literacy on the acquisition of phonology, i.e. a possible development or maintenance of 'foreign accent'. This may be caused by literate learners wrongly assuming that the written form is a faithful representation of the pronunciation,[4] or because learners' awareness of sounds that their developing spoken language production would initially filter out is increased by exposure to writing, forcing them to produce deviant pronunciations to incorporate these sounds. For example, learners whose native languages do not allow syllable-final consonants may be more likely to produce forms like [ka] for cat without exposure to writing, just as children acquiring English as a first language typically do. However, the written forms shows them that [t] must be pronounced, so an extra vowel is added (epenthesis) as in [kat ], which may persist. Acquisiti