text:
How Do I Get My Students Over Their Alternative Conceptions (Misconceptions) for Learning?
Joan Lucariello, PhD, City University of New York
When teachers provide instruction on concepts in various subjects, they are teaching students who already have some pre-instructional knowledge about the topic. Student knowledge, however, can be erroneous, illogical or misinformed. These erroneous understandings are termed alternative conceptions or misconceptions (or intuitive theories). Alternative conceptions (misconceptions) are not unusual. In fact, they are a normal part of the learning process. We quite naturally form ideas from our everyday experience, but obviously not all the ideas we develop are correct with respect to the most current evidence and scholarship in a given discipline. Moreover, some concepts in different content areas are simply very difficult to grasp. They may be very abstract, counterintuitive or quite complex. Hence, our understanding of them is flawed. In addition, things we have already learned are sometimes unhelpful in learning new concepts/theories. This occurs when the new concept or theory is inconsistent with previously learned material. Accordingly, as noted, it is very typical for students (and adults) to have misconceptions in different domains (content knowledge areas). Indeed, researchers have found that there is a common set of alternative conceptions (misconceptions) that most students typically exhibit. There is one class of alternative theories (or misconceptions) that is very deeply entrenched. These are "ontological misconceptions," which relate to ontological beliefs (i.e., beliefs about the fundamental categories and properties of the world).
Description of some of these common alternative conceptions (misconceptions) and ontological misconceptions in different subject areas.
Alternative conceptions (misconceptions) can really impede learning for several reasons. First, students generally are unaware that the knowledge they have is wrong. Moreover, misconceptions can be very entrenched in student thinking. In addition, new experiences are interpreted through these erroneous understandings, thereby interfering with being able to correctly grasp new information. Also, alternative conceptions (misconceptions) tend to be very resistant to instruction because learning entails replacing or radically reorganizing student knowledge. Hence, conceptual change has to occur for learning to happen. This puts teachers in the very challenging position of needing to bring about significant conceptual change in student knowledge. Generally, ordinary forms of instruction, such as lectures, labs, discovery learning, or simply reading texts, are not very successful at overcoming student misconceptions. For all these reasons, misconceptions can be hard nuts for teachers to crack. However, several instructional strategies have been found to be effective in achieving conceptual change and helping students leave their alternative conceptions behind and learn correct concepts or theories.
Instructional strategies that can lead to change in students' alternative conceptions (misconceptions) and to learning of new concepts and theories
Present new concepts or theories that you are teaching in such a way that students see as plausible, high-quality, intelligible and generative.
Use students' correct conceptions and build on those by creating a bridge of examples to the new concept or theory that students are having trouble learning due to misconceptions they hold.
Use model-ased reasoning, which helps students construct new representations that vary from their intuitive theories.
Use diverse instruction, wherein you present a few examples that challenge multiple assumptions, rather than a larger number of examples that challenge just one assumption.
Help students become aware of (raise student metacognition about) their own alternative conceptions (misconceptions).
Present students with experiences that cause cognitive conflict in students' minds. Experiences (as in strategy 3 above) that can cause cognitive conflict are ones that get students to consider their erroneous (misconception) knowledge side-by-side with, or at the same time as, the correct concept or theory.
Engage in Interactive Conceptual Instruction (ICI)
Develop students' epistemological thinking, which incorporates beliefs and theories about the nature of knowledge and the nature of learning, in ways that will facilitate conceptual change. The more naïve students' beliefs are about knowledge and learning, the less likely they are to revise their misconceptions.
Once students have overcome their alternative conceptions (misconceptions), engage them in argument to strengthen their newly acquired correct knowledge (representations).
DON'Ts when trying to eliminate alternative conceptions (misconceptions)
Do not rely solely on lectures.
Do not rely solely on labs or hands-on activities.
Do not rely solely on demonstrations.
Do not rely solely on having students simply read the text.
In presenting new concepts or theories, teachers should be sure to show these theories or concepts as:
Plausible. The new information should be shown to be consistent with other knowledge and able to explain the available data. Learners must see how the new conception (theory) is consistent with other knowledge and a good explanation of the data.
High quality. Of course, the theory/concept to be taught is of high quality from a scientific point of view, since it is a correct theory. However, the presented theory should take a better account of the data than what students currently have available to them. For example, the instructor should deal with the problem from the perspective of the students (e.g., students for whom a "flat earth" theory provides a better account of the data available than does a "spherical earth" theory). Hence, the quality of the new theory must be considered along with the kind of data that students know about.
Intelligible. Teachers should do what they can to increase the intelligibility of the new theory. Learners must be able to grasp how the new conception works. To increase intelligibility, teachers can use methods such as use of:
analogies (see Chiu & Lin, 2005)
models (both pictorial conceptual and physical) (See Mayer, 1993; Vosniadou, Ioannides, Dimitrakopoulou, & Papademetriou, 2001 for 5th and 6th graders; Clement, 1993 for high school students; Mayer & Gallini, 1990 for college students;)
direct exposition (see Klahr & Nigam, 2004).
Generative/fruitful. Teachers should show that the new concept/theory can be extended to open up new areas of inquiry. Learners must be able to extend the new conception to new areas of inquiry. Teachers might accomplish this by illustrating the application of the new concept/theory to a range of problems. These problems can include familiar ones and new ones.
(See Chinn & Brewer, 1993; Mayer, 2008; Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982).
One of the best ways that teachers can correct misconceptions is by a strategy called "using bridging analogies." This strategy attempts to bridge pupils' correct beliefs (called "anchoring conceptions") to the new concept/theory (target) by presenting a series of intermediate similar or analogous examples between the students' initial correct conception and the new concept or theory (target) to be learned. (see Brown, 1992; Brown & Clement, 1989; Clement, 1993; Minstrell, 1982; Yilmaz, Eryilmaz, & Geban, 2006)
Using bridging analogies: Example 1
Many high school students hold a classic misconception in the area of physics, in particular, mechanics. They erroneously believe that "static objects are rigid barriers that cannot exert forces." The classic target problem explains the "at rest" condition of an object. Students are asked whether a table exerts an upward force on a book that is placed on the table. Students with this misconception will claim that the table does not push up on a book lying at rest on it. However, gravity and the table exert equal, but oppositely directed forces on the book thus keeping the book in equilibrium and "at rest." The table's force comes from the microscopic compression or bending of the table. At the same time that students hold the misconception about static objects, they also believe that a spring pushes up on one's hand when the hand is pushing down on the spring. Physicists understand that these two situations — book on table and hand pressing on a spring — are equivalent. The Bridging Strategy establishes analogical connections between situations that students initially view as not analogous as a means to getting students to extend their valid intuitions (the spring) to initially counterintuitive target situations (the table). The use of bridging analogies entails use of concrete examples for a connected sequence, starting from an anchor (situation in which most students believe there is upward force), through an intermediate example(s), to a target situation (book on table).
|(A) ANCHOR Ex.
|(B) BRIDING Ex.
|(C) BRIDING Ex.
|(D) TARGET Ex.
Hand on spring
Book resting on flexible foam pad
Book resting on board
Book on table
A similar strategy teachers can try is the use of the "bridging representation."
Using bridging analogies: Example 2
In physics instruction, use of the SRI (symbolic representation of interactions) diagram has been found to be helpful. The SRI emphasizes forces as interactions and makes identification of the mechanical interaction between pairs of objects explicit. It is contrasted with the free-body diagram that concentrates on the forces acting on one target object. The pedagogic function of the SRI is to provide a bridge, referred to as a "bridging representation."
Effective science learning often requires that students construct new representations that vary in important ways from ones used in everyday life. Science entails new ways of seeing data in terms of idealized representations or models. Science generally entails mathematical relations, physical intuitions, and sensorimotor action schemes in these models. Teachers should teach idealization techniques, such as thought experiments and limiting case analyses. These techniques are integral to constructing abstract representations that can facilitate student recognition of deep analogies between superficially different phenomena.
A thought experiment, in the broadest sense, is the use of a hypothetical scenario to help us understand the way things actually are. There are many different kinds of thought experiments. All thought experiments, however, employ a methodology that is a priori, rather than empirical, in that they do not proceed by observation or physical experiment. Scientists tend to use thought experiments in the form of imaginary, "proxy" experiments which they conduct prior to a real, "physical" experiment. In these cases, the result of the "proxy" experiment will often be so clear that there will be no need to conduct a physical experiment at all. Scientists also use thought experiments when particular physical experiments are impossible to conduct.
Newton's cannonball was a thought experiment that Isaac Newton used to hypothesize that the force of gravity was universal, and that it was also the key force for planetary motion.
Newton's cannonball
In this experiment Newton visualizes a cannon on top of a very high mountain. If there was no force of gravitation, the cannonball would follow a straight line away from Earth. So long as there is a gravitational force acting on the cannon ball, it will follow different paths depending on its initial velocity.
If the speed is low, it will simply fall back to Earth. (A and B)
If the speed equals some threshold orbital velocity, it will go on circling around the Earth in a fixed circular orbit just like the moon. (C)
If the speed is higher than the orbital velocity, but not high enough to leave Earth altogether (lower than the escape velocity), it will continue rotating around Earth along an elliptical orbit. (D)
If the speed is very high, it will indeed leave Earth. (E)
(See Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten through Eighth Grade, 2007)
Diverse instruction simultaneously challenges at least two erroneous beliefs that underlie a misconception (alternative conception). It is based on a literature that shows adults and children draw stronger inductive inferences from information that impacts on diverse aspects of their underlying beliefs (see Hayes, Goodhew, Heit, & Gillan, 2003 for review). Hayes et al. extend the diversity principle to conceptual change and propose that shifts in intuitive theories or alternative conceptions (misconceptions) are more likely to occur when people encounter new information that challenges several features or assumptions of these models. Conceptual change is thought to be more likely if students are presented with a few examples that challenge multiple assumptions, rather than with a larger number of examples that challenge just one assumption.
Example: Using diverse instruction
Hayes et al. (2003) studied the effect of diverse instructional strategies on children's understanding of the shape of the earth. Children's erroneous beliefs about the earth (their nonbelief in a spherical earth) can be linked to two more general misconceptions (Vosniadou & Brewer, 1992). One is the belief that the earth appears flat to an observer on the ground. The second is a poor understanding of gravity and failure to understand the influence of gravity on objects located on different parts of the earth's surface. Indeed, in considering the earth's surface, when students think that unsupported objects fall, they are likely to construct either a "disk" model of the earth or a "dual earth" model (with a round earth located in space co-existing with a flat earth where people live).
Hayes et al. (2003) randomly assigned 6-yr-old children to one of three conditions: control (no training), single-belief training (all four instructional videos focused on either the relative size of the earth or the effects of gravity), dual-belief training (four instructional videos where two focused on the relative size of the earth and two focused on the effects of gravity). Results showed that only children receiving instruction about two core beliefs showed an increased rate of acceptance of a spherical earth model at post-test time.
Student metacognitive abilities may be critical to achieving conceptual change (Beeth, 1998; Beeth & Hewson, 1999; Case, 1997; Chinn & Brewer, 1993; Gelman & Lucariello, 2002; Inagaki & Hatano, 2002; Minstrell, 1982,1984). Metacognition entails a range of processes, including monitoring, detecting incongruities or anomalies, self-correcting, planning and selecting goals, and refecting on the structure of one's knowledge and thinking (Gelman & Lucariello, 2002).
Several good methods help students think metacognitively:
Engage students in representing their thinking through interactive discussion and open exchange and debate of ideas.
To help students increase their metaconceptual awareness (awareness of their own cognition), it is important to create learning environments that make it possible for them to express their knowledge, including misconception knowledge. This can be done in environments that facilitate group discussion and the verbal expression and debate of ideas. The learning environment should allow for students to express their knowledge and compare it with those of others. Such activities assist students in becoming aware of what they know and what they need to learn.
(See Kuhn, 2006: Minstrell, 1982, 1989; Savinainen & Scott, 2002; Vosniadou et al., 2001)
Elicit student predictions on the topic, followed by a teacher-led demonstration that tests those predictions. Discussion is then used to arrive at a common observation and then to reconcile differences between prediction and observation.
Keep in mind that students (or anyone) can be biased by the ideas (in this case, misconceptions) they already have when observing things. As such, this can actually interfere with observing events correctly. Chinn & Malhotra (2002) have noticed "theory bias at the observation stage." For example, only about 26 percent of children correctly predicted that a heavy and light rock would hit the ground at the same time (cited in Mayer 2008). An important point is to make the data (to be observed) so obvious that it minimizes incorrect observations by students (Mayer, 2008).
(See Kuhn, 2006; Champagne, Gunstone, & Klopfer, 1985; Gunstone, Robin Gray, & Searle, 1992: Use of Predict-Observe-Explain (P-O-E); Mayer, 2008; Minstrell, 1982)
Provide opportunities for reflective inquiry and assessment (White & Frederickson, 1998)
White and colleagues designed a computer-based microworld "Thinker Tools (TT)" (1993; White & Frederiksen, 1998). This is a middle school science curriculum that engages students in learning about and reflecting on the processes of science inquiry as they construct increasingly complex models of force and motion phenomena. The TT Inquiry Curriculum centers around a metacognitive model of research, called the Inquiry Cycle, and a metacognitive process, called Reflective Assessment, in which students reflect on their own and each other's inquiry strategies.
Predict-observe-explain teaching strategy
In the "Predict-Observe-Explain (P-O-E)" strategy, the teacher plans/presents a demonstration or example that s/he will subsequently conduct/explicate. The topic or issue of the demonstration or example should be one that relates to possible student misconceptions and the demonstration/example should be specifically designed to elicit such misconceptions. Before conducting the demonstration, pupils predict what will occur. The teacher then conducts the demonstration (explicates the illustration/example) and the students observe this. After the demonstration (illustrative example), the students must explain why their observations conflicted with their predictions.
The P-O-E strategy does not entail the traditional hands-on laboratory work done by students themselves. When the teacher does the demonstration, it allows students to focus more of their intellectual resources on the conceptual issues at hand, including making predictions.
Description of inquiry cycle
The Inquiry Cycle guides students' research and helps them understand what the research process is all about. It begins with formulating an investigable QUESTION. It moves to a PREDICT phase, wherein students generate alterative hypotheses and predictions with respect to the question. Next comes the EXPERIMENT phase, wherein students design and carry-out experiments in the real world and on the computer. Students then move to the MODEL phase, wherein they analyze their data to construct a conceptual model that includes scientific laws that would predict and explain their findings. Finally, comes the APPLY phase, wherein students apply their model to different situations to investigate the model's utility and limitations. This raises new questions in the process and the cycle begins again. Students go through the Inquiry Cycle for each research topic in the curriculum. They engage in Reflective Assessment at each step in the Inquiry Cycle and after each completion of the Cycle.
The Reflective Assessment component provides students with "Criteria for Judging Research." These include goal-oriented criteria, such as "understanding the science," and process-oriented criteria, such as "being systematic" and "reasoning carefully," and socially-oriented-criteria, such as "communicating well." The TT curriculum was implemented by 3 teachers in 12 urban classes (across grades 7 to 9). The sample included many low-achieving and disadvantaged students. Students' learning was found to be greatly facilitated by the Reflective Assessment component.
The idea that cognitive conflict or disequilibrium can lead to learning is rooted in Piagetian theory. Piaget proposed that cognitive conflict or "disequilibrium" arises when students encounter experiences that they are not able to assimilate or that are incongruous with their current cognitive structures/conceptions. Cognitive conflict can lead to conceptual change or accommodation of current cognitive concepts.
There are a variety of ways that teachers generate cognitive conflict in the mind of the student:
A. Present students with anomalous data (data that do not accord with their misconception)
This strategy is thought to be a major means of eliciting cognitive conflict and getting students to change or abandon their current erroneous theories and adopt new ones. However, just presenting anomalous data is not sufficient. Students have been found to ignore or reject such data, profess uncertainty about their validity, and reinterpret the data, among other things (Chinn & Brewer, 1998). There are certain optimal ways to represent such data.
B. Present students with refutational texts (texts wherein a misconception is explicitly refuted by presenting contrasting information). Present refu¬tational texts alone or in combination with discussion, conducted under teacher guidance. The discussion, which can be conducted with peers, should require students to articulate and support their views with evidence from the text.
A refutational text introduces a common misconception, refutes it, and offers a new (alternative) theory that is shown to be more satisfactory. In this way, refutational texts are a means to create cognitive conflict. The following text from Hynd (2001) is an example of refutational text:
Despite the fact that many people think that a rolling ball will slow or stop on its own, this will not happen....Moving objects will keep moving at a constant rate unless they are slowed or stopped, or their direction is changed because of an outside force such as friction.
See Diakidoy, Kendeou, & Ioannides, 2003; Guzzetti, Snyder, Glass, & Gamas, 1993; Guzzetti, 2000; Hynd, 2001; Maria & MacGinitie, 1987)
C. Present students with text that presents the new theory or concept, and at the same time use teacher strategies or activities that elicit the students' misconceptions such that they consider the conflict between the two.
D. Conduct Conceptual Change Discussions (See Protocol for conceptual change discussion from Eryilmaz, 2002)
Best ways to present anomalous data
Of course, students might not accept the anomalous or contradictory data and therefore not change their minds. Teachers can increase the chances of anomalous data being accepted and leading to conceptual change by:
Making the anomalous data credible. This can be done in a few ways. Teachers can make it clear that the data were collected according to accepted principles. In addition, live demonstrations and hands-on experiences may also increase the credibility of the anomalous data. Also teachers can appeal to real-world data that students already know about (as in the use of anchoring conceptions as described earlier in the bridging analogies strategy discussion).
Avoiding ambiguous data. Choose data that are perceptually obvious. Also, if teachers are aware of the specific misconceptions their students have, they can choose data, in light of that, that will be unambiguous to their students.
Presenting multiple lines of data when necessary. In presenting anomalous data, single experiments are often not convincing. Hence, introducing multiple lines of data, such as use of a series of experiments, should be helpful. If using a single experiment/demonstration, it is useful to be prepared to address student objections effectively.
introducing the anomalous data early in the instructional process. This might be helpful because it appears that the more background knowledge in the topic students have, the more their misconceptions impede the acceptance of anomalous data.
Engaging students in justification of their reasoning about the anomalous data.
(See Chinn & Brewer 1993 and Posner et al., 1982)
Activities to use in combination with text
Some activities that produce cognitive conflict when used in combination with text are:
Augmented activation activities. This activity has two components. One is the activation activity designed to activate or bring to students' attention their misconception knowledge (e.g., by asking them to recall or reiterate their belief; by reminding them of their belief). The second is directing the reader's attention to contradictory information in the text or providing illustrative demonstrations that are incongruous with the misconception. This instructional strategy is similar to the Socratic teaching method and involves students in dialogues that compel them to handle counterexamples and face contradictions to their misconceptions.
The Discussion Web. This is a discussion strategy led by teacher. It can entail using a graphic aid to form students' positions around a central question. Students are required to take a stance (e.g., on the shape of the earth), defend their positions, and persuade each other with evidence from the text. Direct questioning helps students rethink their prior conceptions.
Think sheets. This is a written contrast of student-generated and text-generated ideas of a concept posed as a central question. It is a text based activity that contrasts learners' preconceptions to scientific conceptions from text. Learners then self-monitor their prior knowledge in light of information from the text and from the discussion.
(See Guzzetti, 2000; Guzzetti et al., 1993; Hynd, 2001)
Protocol for conceptual change discussion from Eryilmaz (2002)
The conceptual assignments were chosen as topics for the discussions for all groups. Discussions were held according to the following guidelines that were provided to the teachers:
Use the conceptual question as an exposing event that helps students expose their conceptions about a specific concept or rule.
Allow all students to make their own conceptions or hypotheses explicit (verbally and pictorally).
Ask what students believe or think about the phenomena and why they think so.
Write or draw students on the blackboard even if they are not correct.
Be neutral doing the discussion. If one or some students give the correct answer, take it as another suggestion and play the devil's advocate.
Be patient. Give enough time to the students to think and respond to the questions.
Ask only descriptive questions in this part to understand what students really think about the phenomena.
Try to get more students involved in the discussion by asking questions of each student.
Assist students in stating their ideas clearly and concisely, thereby making them aware of the elements in their own preconceptions.
Encourage confrontation in which students debate the pros and cons of their different preconceptions and increase their awareness and understanding of the differences between their own preconceptions and those of their classmates.
Encourage interaction among students.
Create a discrepant event, one that creates conflict between exposed preconceptions and some observed phenomenon that students cannot explain.
Let students become aware of this conflict: cognitive dissonance, conceptual conflict, or disequilibrium.
Help students to accommodate the new ideas presented to them. The teacher does not bring students the message, but she or he makes them aware of their situation through dialogue.
Make a brief summary from beginning to the end of discussion.
Show explicity where oversimplification, exemplification, association, and multiple representations have happened, if any. If not, give exemplification, associations with other topics, and multiple representations for the topic.
Give students a feeling of progress and growth in mental power, and help them develop confidence in themselves and their abilities.
ICI, described and studied by Savinainen & Scott (2002,) incorporates several key pedagogical aspects:
use of interactive approaches that entail ongoing teacher-student dialogue, which focuses on developing conceptual understandings and wherein students have the opportunity to talk through their understandings with the support of the teacher
teacher use of research-based instruments (questionnaires/assessments/ inventories) that afford quick and detailed formative assessments of students' knowledge in a subject-area
teacher's development of a detailed map of the con¬ceptual terrain of the subject area, including knowledge of the canonical informa¬tion in the subject, student misconceptions, and the representations (understand¬ings) between these two.
(See Mason, 2002 for review)
Conceptual change is facilitated if students view knowledge as:
a. Complex (not simple)
b. Uncertain and evolving (not stable and absolute)
Conceptual change is facilitated if students view learning as:
a. a gradual, slow process (not as "quick or not at all")
b. an ability that is improvable (malleable) (not fixed or unmodifiable)
Conceptual change is also facilitated by addressing students' epistemologies about specific domains.
For example, with respect to science, having students reflect on the nature of science (see Smith, Maclin, Houghton, & Hennessey, 2000) and on the criteria that characterize good research facilitate conceptual change in science.
(See Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten through Eighth Grade, 2007)
Engaging in argument may be a central way that a student's new conceptual system becomes strengthened and overtakes a student's alternative conceptions (misconceptions). Argument entails asking students to evaluate or debate the adequacy of a new system with competing alternative conceptions (misconceptions). Students, even in the elementary school years, are sensitive to many of the features that make for a good concept/theory, such as plausibility, fruitfulness, and explanatory coherence.
Children actually seem to prefer accounts that explain more, are not ad hoc, are internally consistent, and fit the empirical data (Samarapungavan, 1992).
(See also Duschl & Osborne, 2002, for how to support and promote argumentation type discourse.)
Why and how do these teaching strategies work?
Students do not come to school as blank slates to be filled by instruction. Children are active cognitive agents who arrive at school after years of cognitive growth (Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten through Eighth Grade, 2007). They come to the classroom with considerable knowledge based on intu¬itions, every day experiences, or what they have been taught in other contexts. This pre-instructional knowledge is referred to as preconceptions. Since a considerable amount of our knowledge is organized by subject areas, such as mathematics, science, etc., so too are preconceptions.
It is important for teachers to know about the preconceptions of their students because learning depends on and is related to student prior knowledge (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Gelman & Lucariello, 2002; Piaget & Inhelder, 1969; Resnick, 1983). We interpret incoming information in terms of our current knowledge and cognitive organizations. Learners try to link new information to what they already know (Resnick, 1983). This kind of learning is known as assimilation (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969). When new information is inconsistent with what learners already know it cannot be assimilated. Rather, the learner's knowledge will have to change or be altered because of this new information and experience. This kind of learning is known as accommodation (of knowledge/mental structures).
Whether learning is a matter of assimilation or accommodation depends on whether student preconceptions are anchoring conceptions or alternative conceptions (misconceptions), respectively. Student preconceptions that are consistent with concepts in the assigned curriculum are anchoring conceptions. Learning, in such cases, is a matter of assimilation or conceptual growth. It consists in enriching or adding to student knowledge. Assimilation is an easier kind of learning because prior knowledge does not interfere with learning. Rather, prior knowledge is a base the learner can rely on to build new knowledge.
Student preconceptions that are inconsistent with, and even contradict, concepts in the curriculum, are alternative conceptions or misconceptions (or intuitive theories). Intuitive theories are very typical and children and adults possess them. They develop from the natural effort to make sense of the world around us. For example, the "distance theory" (a misconception) that explains seasonal/temperature change in terms of different distances between the Earth and the Sun in summer and winter could easily develop from one's everyday experience with heat sources (Kikas, 2004). Sometimes even textbooks themselves can be the cause of alternative theories. For instance, a diagram of the earth's orbit commonly used in textbooks presents a stretched-out ellipse (although it more closely resembles a circle) that can contribute to the erroneous "distance theory" of seasonal change (Kikas, 1998). Hence, intuitive theories or misconceptions are not a reflection of a cognitively deficient child. Rather, they reflect a child with a cognitively active mind, who has already achieved considerable complex and abstract knowledge. Indeed, young children are not limited to concrete reasoning. Nor should they be viewed as a bundle of misconceptions.
Alternative conceptions (misconceptions) interfere with learning for several reasons. Students use these erroneous understandings to interpret new experiences, thereby interfering with correctly grasping the new experiences. Moreover, misconceptions can be entrenched and tend to be very resistant to instruction (Brewer & Chinn, 1991; McNeil & Alibali, 2005). Hence, for concepts or theories in the curriculum where students typically have misconceptions, learning is more challenging. It is a matter of accommodation. Instead of simply adding to student knowledge, learning is a matter of radically reorganizing or replacing student knowledge. Conceptual change or accommodation has to occur for learning to happen (Carey, 1985; 1986; Posner et al.,1982; Strike & Posner, 1985, 1992). Teachers will need to bring about this conceptual change.
According to conceptual change theory, learning involves three steps (see Mayer, 2008 for summary):
Recognizing or detecting an anomaly. This refers to an awareness that your current mental model (representation or theory or conception) is inadequate to explain observable facts. The student must realize that he/she has a misconception(s) that must be discarded or replaced.
Constructing a new model. This entails finding a better, more sufficient model that is able to explain the observable facts. It involves the students' replacing one model with another.
Using a new model. This refers to students using the new model to find a solution when presented with a problem. This reflects an ability to solve problems with the new model.
Hence mental models (representations of theories or concepts) are at the core of conceptual-change theory. For example, you are using a mental model when you think of the earth as hollow.
Traditional methods of instruction used in isolation, such as lectures, labs, discovery learning or simply reading text have not been found to be effective at achieving conceptual change (Chinn & Brewer, 1993; Kikas, 1998; Lee, Eichinger, Anderson, Berkheimer, & Blakeslee, 1993; Roth, 1990; Smith, Maclin, Grosslight, & Davis, 1997). Recommended alternative teaching strategies are included in this module.
Is it normal for students to have misconceptions? Do most students have them?
Yes, it is very typical for students to have misconceptions. They are acquired or formed through everyday experiences, through instruction on other topics, and because some concepts are very complex to master.
Are there typical common misconceptions that students have in different academic subjects?
Yes, there are typical misconceptions that students have in the different subjects, such as math and science. Being aware of the typical misconceptions students have in these subject areas can help you focus your instruction to address the most common misconceptions.
Are these strategies to correct student misconceptions applicable to all children?
These strategies are general enough to be effective with most children. However, various strategies are optimally appropriate and effective at specific grade levels. Moreover, a teacher should use his or her judgment about which strategies might be most effective, given the particular students in the class. For example, for students that have language difficulties (e.g., difficulty reading and processing text and articulating thoughts verbally) the teacher might rely more on the less-verbal strategies (e.g., use of bridging analogies) with those students.
For whom do these recommendations work and under what conditions?
Age. Almost all these recommendations can be used with students from the elementary grades (beginning at around 5th Grade) through high school. In the case of using bridging analogies (recommendation #2), this strategy is most suitable for high school students.
Individual differences. We know very little about how these recommendations might vary by gender or ethnicity. There is good reason to believe, however, that most, if not all, of these recommendations would be generally successful with most students. The little research that has been conducted with different children suggests that these strategies would be comparably effective with low-achieving children (as well as with better performing children)
Contextual factors. We know very little about how these recommendations might vary by contextual factors, such as children living in poverty and different kinds of family constellations. We do know that misconceptions are quite universal. There is good reason to be¬lieve, however that most, if not all, of these recommendations for getting students over their misconceptions would be generally successful with most students. The little research that has been done with 7th through 9th grade urban classes that had many disadvantaged students suggests that these strategies would be effective for low-SES children. There is no reason to believe that family variables would play any role in the effectiveness of these strategies.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Brown, J. S., & Burton, R. R. (1978). Diagnostic models for procedural bugs in basic mathematical skills. Cognitive Science, 2, 155-192.
Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten through Eighth Grade. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation dis¬course. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
Eryilmaz, A. (2002). Effects of conceptual assignments and conceptual change discussions on students' misconceptions and achievement regarding force and motion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 1001-1015.
Guzzetti, B. J., Snyder, T. E., Glass, G. V., & Gamas, W. S. (1993). Promot¬ing conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 116-159.
Hayes, B. K., Goodhew, A., Heit, E., & Gillan, J. (2003). The role of diverse in¬struction in conceptual change. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 86, 253-276.
Hynd, C. R. (2001). Refutational texts and the change process. International Journal of Educational Research, 35, 699-714.
Mayer, R. E. (2003). Learning and instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and instruction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Minstrell, J. (1982). Explaining the "at rest" condition of an object. The Physics Teacher, 20, 10-14.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommo¬dation of a scientifc conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.
Resnick, L. B. (1983). Mathematics and science learning: A new conception. Science, 220, 477-478.
Siegler, R. S. (2003). Implications of cognitive science research for mathematics education. In J. Kilpatrick, W. B. Martin, & D. E. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 219-233). Res¬ton, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Alexander, P. A. (2006). Psychology in learning and instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Arnaudin, M., & Mintzes, J. (1985). Students' alternative conceptions of the hu¬man circulatory system: A cross-age study. Science Education, 69(5), 721-733.
Arnaudin, M., & Mintzes, J. (1986). The cardiovascular system: Children's concep¬tions and misconceptions. Science and Children, 23(5), 48-51.
Atwood, R. K., & Atwood, V. A. (1996). Preservice elementary teachers' conceptions of the causes of seasons. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(5), 553-563.
Baxter, J. (1995). Children's understanding of astronomy and Earth sciences. In S. M. Glynn & R. Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools (pp. 155-178). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Beeth, M. E. (1998). Teaching science in 5th grade: Instructional goals that support conceptual change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(10), 1091-1101.
Beeth, M. E., & Hewson, P. W. (1999). Learning goals in an exemplary sci¬ence teacher's practice: Cognitive and social factors in teaching for conceptual change. Science Education, 83(6), 738-760.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Brewer, W. F., & Chinn, C. A. (1991). Entrenched beliefs, inconsistent informa¬tion, and knowledge change. In L. Birnbaum (Ed.), The International Conference of the Learning Sciences: Proceedings of the 1991 conference (pp. 67-73). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
Brown, D. E. (1992). Using examples and analogies to remediate misconceptions in physics: Factors infuencing conceptual change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(1), 17-34.
Brown, D. E., & Clement, J. (1989). Overcoming misconceptions via analogical reasoning: Abstract transfer versus explanatory model construction. International Science, 18, 237-261.
Brown, J. S., & Burton, R.R. (1978). Diagnostic models for procedural bugs in basic mathematical skills. Cognitive Science, 2, 155-192.
Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Carey, S. (1986). Cognitive science and science education. American Psychologist, 41, 1123-1130.
Case, R. (1997). The development of conceptual structures. In D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol 2): Perception, cognition, and language (pp. 745-800). New York: Wiley.
Champagne, A. B., Gunstone, R. F., & Klopfer, L. E. (1985). Effecting changes in cognitive structures among physics students. In H. T. West & A. L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change (pp. 61-90). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Chi, M. T. H. (1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological catego¬ries: Implications for learning and discovery in science. In R. Giere (Ed.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (Vol XV): Cognitive models of science (pp. 129-186). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining: The dual processes of generating inference and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol 5): Educational design and cognitive science (pp. 161-238). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 161- 199.
Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1-49.
Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 623-654.
Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Children's responses to anomalous scientific data: How is conceptual change impeded? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 327-343.
Chiu, M. H., & Lin, J. W. (2005). Promoting fourth graders' conceptual change of their understanding of electric current via multiple analogies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(4), 429-464.
Clement, J. (1982). Students' preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50(1), 66-71.
Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten through Eighth Grade (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Diakidoy, I. A., Kendeou, P., & Ioannides, C. (2003). Reading about energy: The effects of text structure in science learning and conceptual change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(3), 335-356.
Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
Eryilmaz, A. (2002). Effects of conceptual assignments and conceptual change discussions on students' misconceptions and achievement regarding force and motion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 1001-1015.
Falkner, K. P., Levi, L., & Carpenter, T. P. (1999). Children's understanding of equality: A foundation for algebra. Teaching Children Mathematics, 6(4), 232-236.
Fischbein, E., Deri, M., Nello, M., & Marino, M. (1985). The role of implicit models in solving verbal problems in multiplication and division. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,16, 3-17.
Gelman, R., & Lucariello, J. (2002). Role of learning in cognitive development. In H. Pashler (Series Ed.) & C. R. Gallistel (Vol. Ed.), Stevens' handbook of experimental psychology: Vol. 3. Learning, motivation, and emotion (3rd ed., pp. 395- 443). New York: Wiley.
Goulding, M., Rowland, T., & Barber, P. (2002). Does it matter? Primary teacher trainees' subject knowledge in mathematics. British Educational Research Journal, 28(5), 689-704.
Gunstone, R. F., Robin Gray, C. M., & Searle, P. (1992). Some long-term effects of uninformed conceptual change. Science Education, 76(2), 175-197.
Guzzetti, B. J. (2000). Learning counter-intuitive science concepts: What have we learned from over a decade of research? Reading & Writing Quarterly, 16(2), 89-98.
Guzzetti, B. J., Snyder, T. E., Glass, G. V., & Gamas, W. S. (1993). Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 116-159.
Hartnett, P., & Gelman, R. (1998). Early understandings of numbers: Paths or barriers to the construction of new understandings? Learning and Instruction, 8(4), 341-374.
Hatano, G., Siegler, R. S., Richards, D. D., Inagaki, K., Stavy, R., & Wax, N. (1997). The development of biological knowledge: A multi-national study. Cognitive Development, 8, 47-62.
Hayes, B. K., Goodhew, A., Heit, E., & Gillan, J. (2003). The role of diverse instruction in conceptual change. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 86, 253-276.
Hynd, C. R. (2001). Refutational texts and the change process. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(7), 699-714.
Inagaki, K., & Hatano, G. (2002). Young children's naïve thinking about the biological world. New York: Psychology Press.
Keil, F. C. (1979). Semantic and conceptual development: An ontological perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kieran, C. (1981). Concepts associated with the equality symbol. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 317-326.
Kieran, C. (1992). The learning and teaching of school algebra. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 390- 419). New York: Macmillan.
Kikas, E. (1998). The impact of teaching on students' definitions and explanations of astronomical phenomena. Learning and Instruction, 8(5), 439-454.
Kikas, E. (2003). University students' conceptions of different physical phenomena. Journal of Adult Development, 10(3), 139-150.
Kikas, E. (2004). Teachers' conceptions and misconceptions concerning three natural phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 432-448.
Klahr, D. & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15, 661-667.
Knuth, E. J., Alibali, M. W., McNeil, N. M., Weinberg, A., & Stephens, A. C. (2005). Middle school students' understanding of core algebraic concepts: Equivalence and variable. International Journal of Mathematics Education, 37, 1-9.
Kuchemann. (1978). Children's understanding of numerical variables. Mathematics in School, 7(4), 23-26.
Kuhn, D. (2006). Do children and adults learn differently? Journal of Cognition and Development, 7, 279-293.
Lee, O., Eichinger, D. C., Anderson, C. W., Berkheimer, G. D., & Blakeslee, T. D. (1993). Changing middle school students' conceptions of matter and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(3), 249-270.
MacGregor, M., & Stacey, K. (1997). Students' understanding of algebraic notation: 11-15. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33, 1-19.
Maria, K., & MacGinitie, W. (1987). Learning from texts that refute the reader's prior knowledge. Reading Research and Instruction, 26, 222-238.
Mason, L. (2002). Developing epistemological thinking to foster conceptual change in different domains. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 301-335). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Mason, K., & Ruddock, G. (1986). Decimals. Windsor, Ontario, Canada: APU/NFER-Nelson.
Mayer, R. E. (1993). Illustrations that instruct. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 253-284). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and instruction (2nd ed.) . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 715-726.
McCloskey, M. (1983). Intuitive physics. Scientific American, 248(4), 122-130.
McCloskey, M., Caramazza, A., & Green, B. (1980). Curvilinear motion in the absence of external forces: Naïve beliefs about the motion of objects. Science, 210, 1139-1141.
McNeil, N. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2005). Why won't you change your mind? Knowledge of operational patterns hinders learning and performance on equations. Child Development, 76, 883-899.
Minstrell, J. (1982). Explaining the "at rest" condition of an object. The Physics Teacher, 20, 10-14.
Minstrell, J. (1984). Teaching for the development of understanding of ideas: Forces on moving objects. In C. W. Anderson (Ed.), Observing classrooms: Perspectives from research and practice (pp. 67-85). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
Minstrell, J. (1989). Teaching science for understanding. In L. B. Resnick & L. E. Klopfer (Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research (pp. 129-149). Alexendria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Nunes, T., & Bryant, P. (Eds.). (1996). Children doing mathematics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ojala, J. (1997). Lost in space? The concepts of planetary phenomena held by trainee primary school teachers. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 6, 183-203.
Pelaez, N. J., Boyd, D. D., Rojas, J. B., & Hoover, M. A. (2005). Prevalence of blood circulation misconceptions among prospective elementary teachers. Advances in Physiology Education, 29, 172-181.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books,.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientifc conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227.
Resnick, L. B. (1983). Mathematics and science learning: A new conception. Science, 220, 477-478.
Resnick, L. B., Nesher, P., Leonard, F., Magone, M., Omanson, S., & Peled, I. (1989). Conceptual bases of arithmetic errors: The case of decimal fractions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(1), 8-27.
Rosnick, P. (1981). Some misconceptions concerning the concept of variable. Mathematics Teacher, 74, 418- 420.
Roth, K. J. (1990). Science education: It's not enough to "do" or "relate". American Educator, 13(4), 16-22, 46-48.
Ryan, J., & McCrae, B. (2005). Subject matter knowledge: Errors and misconceptions of beginning pre-service teachers. In P. Clarkson, A. Downtown, D. Gronn, M. Horne, A. McDonough, R. Pierce, & A. Roche (Eds), Building Connections: Research, Theory and Practice: Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, (Vol. 2, pp. 641-648). Melbourne, Australia: Deakin University.
Sackur-Grisvard, C., & Leonard, F. (1985). Intermediate cognitive organization in the process of learning a mathematical concept: The order of positive decimal numbers. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 157-174.
Samarapungavan, A. (1992). Children's judgments in theory choice tasks: Scientifc rationality in childhood. Cognition, 45, 1-32.
Savinainen, A., & Scott, P. (2002). The Force Concept Inventory: A tool for moni¬toring student learning. Physics Education, 37(1), 45-52.
Savinainen, A., Scott, P., & Viiri, J. (2005). Using a bridging representation and social interactions to foster conceptual change: Designing and evaluating an instructional sequence for Newton's third law. Science Education, 89(2),175-195.
Siegler, R. S. (2003). Implications of cognitive science research for mathematics education. In J. Kilpatrick, W. B. Martin, & D. E. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 219-233). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Smith, C. L., Maclin, D., Grosslight, L., & Davis, H. (1997). Teaching for understand¬ing: A study of students' pre-instruction theories of matter and a comparison of the effectiveness of two approaches to teaching about matter and density. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 317-393.
Smith, C. L., Maclin, D., Houhgton, C., & Hennessey, M. G. (2000). Sixth-grade students' epistemologies of science: The impact of school science experiences on epistemological development. Cognition and Instruction, 18(3), 349-422.
Steinberg, R. M., Sleeman, D. H., & Ktorza, D. (1990). Algebra students' knowledge of equivalence of equations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(2), 112-121.
Stovall, G., & Nesbit, C. R. (2003). Let's try action research! Science and Children, 40, 44-48.
Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1985). A conceptual change view of learning and understanding. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change. New York: Academic Press.
Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. A. Duschl & R. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice (pp. 147-176). Albany, NY: Statue University of New York Press.
Tirosh, D. (2000). Enhancing prospective teachers' knowledge of children's conceptions: The case of division of fractions. Journal for research in Mathematics Education, 31(1), 5-25.
Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 45-69.
Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535-585.
Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1994). Mental models of the day/night cycle. Cognitive Science, 18, 123-183.
Vosniadou, S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakopoulou, A., & Papademetriou. E. (2001). Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science. Learning and Instruction, 11(4), 381-419.
White, B. Y. (1993). Thinker Tools: Causal models, conceptual change, and science education. Cognition and Instruction, 10(1), 1-100.
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3-118.
Williams, J., & Ryan, J. (2000). National testing and the improvement of class¬room teaching: Can they coexist? British Educational Research Journal, 26(1), 49-73.
Winner, E. (1997). The point of words: Children's understanding of metaphor and irony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Yilmaz, S., Eryilmaz, A., & Geban, O. (2006). Assessing the impact of bridging analogies in mechanics. School Science and Mathematics, 106(6), 220-230.
Yip, D. (1998). Teachers' misconceptions of the circulatory system. Journal of Biological Education, 32(3), 207-216.


text:
Skip to content. |
Skip to navigation
Subscribe to an always-updated RSS feed.
Our mission is to save the places people love by strengthening land conservation across America.
1660 L St. NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20036 email@example.com
©Copyright 2015 Land Trust Alliance
Privacy Policy |
Photo Credits |
Site Map |
Contact Us

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Click here for the flyer!
Follow this link to learn more and register.
Click here to download or print the flyer!
CUSolutions Group's Invest in America is now Love My Credit Union Rewards
Love My Credit Union Rewards has had an exciting response to its new brand and program changes. This fall, CU Solutions Group is kicking off a series of webinars to showcase not only what's new with Love My Credit Union Rewards, but also highlight the deep discount programs that it's famous for.
Join one of their complimentary webinars to learn about:
- Program changes – bundles, streamlined enrollment, consolidated marketing, new dashboard
- Which programs help credit unions boost auto loans
- How Love My Credit Union Rewards adds member value and garners loyalty
- Tactics that help members save while earning non-interest income for the credit union
Members have saved over $1 billion with our program – help them save even more!
Webinar Dates:
October 9, 2014 (2:00 PM)
October 22, 2014 (2:00 PM)
November 13, 2014 (2:00 PM)
December 11, 2014 (2:00 PM)
Click here to register for the webinar.
This event has been postponed. A new date is in the works, more information to come.
Carie Schelfhaudt, Director of Digital Marketing, McDougall & Duval Advertising
An active player since the inception of social media, Carie directs all social and digital marketing strategies for McDougall & Duval's clients, a majority being in financial services. She is a sought after speaker and writer, presenting at conferences and regularly writing columns to educate others on the best practices for online and social media marketing at backs and credit unions.
I. Writing a Social Media Policy
Writing a social media policy that satisfies the needs of human resources, marketing and compliance can be an intimidating task. But have no fear! Knowing what not to do when making a policy can make the process so much easier.
II. Social Media Training 101 for Credit Union Employees
New guidelines from regulators say financial institutions need to train employees on official, work-related use of social media. Learn the key components of developing an employee education program for your financial institution.
III. Content Tips for Financial Marketers
Expecting the unexpected and planning ahead for quick responses are critical to your new online marketing strategy. Now is the time to develop a plan.


text:
This exquisite pendant features one lustrous 9-10mm cultured Tahitian pearl dangling from a lovely setting with three single round diamonds, at approximately .07 carat total weight. This unique piece is crafted from quality 14 karat white gold and hangs from a matching 18-inch box chain.
Order now for delivery on or before
Wednesday, April 08, 2015
using FedEx 2nd Day.


text:
To guarantee this part fits your vehicle, click here. If it doesn't fit your vehicle, we'll recommend similar products.
Our Advantage
Need Help?
Compare Related Products
Motorcraft FD4604 Fuel Filter
Our price: $69.29
Our price: $69.29
AC Delco TP3012 Fuel Filter
Our price: $49.10
Our price: $49.10
Omix 17718.05 Fuel Filter
Our price: $65.25
Our price: $65.25
Beck Arnley 043-3000 Fuel Filter
Our price: $37.35
Our price: $37.35
view image gallery
FramG10243 Fuel Filter - Direct Fit
Part #: FFG10243 | Mfr #: G10243
In Stock
Ships out in Same day - 1 business day
Ships out in Same day - 1 business day
- Low Price Guarantee
Be the first to write a review.
- Overview
- Manufacturer info
- Related Products
- Related Products


text:
Thursday, February 21, 2013 2:34 PM
Inappropriate photo? Alert us.
BIRMINGHAM, Alabama - One person was killed this afternoon in a wreck on I-59 near the Roebuck Parkway exit, according to Capt. Henry Irby, a spokesman for the Birmingham Police Department. There were no other cars involved in the crash, and no other injuries reported in the incident, he said. The vehicle is overturned in the southbound lanes of the interstate. Traffic is backed up for about 2 miles, according to reports from the scene. Birmingham officers are still investigating the crash. (Joe email@example.com)
Related articles
- Birmingham woman identified as victim of fatal I-59 crash (photos) February 21, 2013, 4:25 PM


text:
Funny Marriage Quotes and Sayings
Marriage is a workshop…where husband works & wife shops.
In our marriage everything is 50/50. I cook, he eats. I wash, we wears. I shop, he pays!
A woman worries about the future until she gets a husband. A man never worries about the future until he gets a wife.
My wife and I always compromise. I admit I am wrong and she agrees with me. :)
You know… There is a name for people who are always wrong about everything all the time… Husband!!!
– Bill Maher
Marriage is when a man looses his bachelors degree and woman gets her masters degree.
Marriage is just fancy word to adopt an over grown male child who is no more handled by his parents.
Husband is the HEAD of the family and wife is the NECK that turns the head around!!
I love her even though she makes me do stuff.
Marriage: I think my wife fell in love with annoying me.
Married men live longer, but they are also more willing to die in more than one way!
When ever you can afford to get married. Buy yourself a sports car.
My husband and I married for better or worse!! He couldn't have done better and I couldn't have done worse!
You have two options in a marriage. You can either be happy or you can be right.
Marriage is a sacred institution, everyone who does it ends up with their own private room eventually.
Marriage is like a poker game. You start out with a pair. She shows a heart. He flashes a diamond. She gets a flush. And he ends up with a full house and a big pot!!
A man marries a woman hoping she would never change, a woman marries a man thinking that she can change him.
Wife: honey I want you to whisper dirty things in my ear! Husband: kitchen, living room, dinning room, patio.
Marriage is a relationship in which one person is always right and the other is the husband!
Make love and not war
Or, find someone, marry them
And you can do both!
My wife swept me off my feet when we first met now all she does is tell me to lift my feet so she can sweep!
Marriage is grand. Divorce, 200 grand.
Always remember: she's right, you're wrong, and you're sorry.
Let us now set forth one of the fundamental truths about marriage: the wife is in charge.
– Bill Cosby
I love being married. It's so great to find that one special person you want to annoy for the rest of your life.
– Rita Rudner


text:
Write Review
Compare Banks
Capital One
out of
, based on
ratings and
reviews & complaints.
Product/Service Pages:
Auto Loans
Checking Accounts
Credit Cards
Most Popular
More Options >
More filter options:
Customer Service
Company Policy
Product/Service Quality
Service Fee
Capital One Cardholder For 5 Years NOT ONE INCREASE
Posted by
Well, Where to start ? 5-6 Years ago I applied for a Capital one card. I was approved and was given a $500 credit limit. I paid the statement on time each and every month. After a year had gone by of having the $500 card. I called in and asked for a credit line increase. I was denied, and told that the reason for the denial would be mailed to me. About 10 days later it arrived. The reason ? Well here's the reason that they stated to me. In fact, I received 2, Yes, 2 separately mailed denial letters. And they BOTH stated the same thing. They both stated that the reason for my denial was:
"We are unable to verify your billing address"
Okay, What !!?? Unable to verify my billing address ? But yet they mailed me 2 letters, and mailed them to my billing address ? What kind of excuse is THAT???
Well, I just blew it off. Thinking, Okay, Maybe I just need more time to show them my credit worthiness, fine. I'll wait for my time to come.
The following year came, Year 2 denied, Year 3 denied, Year 4 denied, Then finally, In Nov-Dec of 2012 ( Year 5) I again called in but well prepared this time. This time I had a copy of my credit report AND my FICO score in hand .
My credit report doesn't have a single blemish ( Yes, From all 3 credit agencies). And my FICO score was 686.
Again I was denied a credit line increase !!! The reason ??
" Capital One is currently not accepting customer initiated credit line increase request at this time "
Well then why not state that to me on the phone when I had called in to ask for an increase ?? Why play make believe on the phone and pretend like your reviewing my account for an increase ???
Now, This time I told the Capital One representative that I was getting sick and tired of getting BS reasons, and that If I don't have an increase by March 2013 that I was going to close my account at that time .
Now, Just to let you know my account balance had been paid in full since October of 2012. So I would give them 6 months to give me an increase, or I was done.
I then hang up with Capital One. I now turn to my other credit cards. And begin to call them and ask for an increase on those cards.
Discover Card = I had only had my Discover card for about a year. They started me at a credit line of $1, 000. So I call them and ask for a credit line increase, They gave me a $4, 000 credit line increase.
Best Buy Mastercard ( Now owned by Capital One ) I had them for about a year and a half. Started me off at $600, 7 months later raised it to $1, 000. Now when I called in and asked, They raise it $900.00.
Citi Bank Diamond Preferred Credit card + I apply for the first time and they give me a $3, 000 line of credit.
But the Capital One card that I have had now for 5 years won't raise my credit line one single cent ????
So now March 2013 is here. No increase !! So I then state, Since you won't increase my limit, what's my interest rate ?? The guy says , "It's 22% ", I say, well then lets get THAT lowered at least. He says , " I'm sorry sir, I'm unable to do that for you " . You know what ?? Just close the account then. And he did so without even a whimper of trying to keep me as a customer.
So I close the account, Then immediately file a complaint against Capital One with the BBB.
3 Days go by, And a lady from Capital One Corporate Offices calls me regarding my complaint to the BBB.
I pretty much tell her exactly what I'm telling you here. About my 5 years of denial, yet other companies either giving me substantial credit increases, or other credit card companies STARTING ME OFF at $3, 000, and yet nothing from Capital One.
She asks me how much credit I have on my other CC's. I tell her $5, 000 on Discover, $2, 500 on my Discover ( Walmart), $3, 000 with Citi Bank, $7, 000 Wells Fargo CC, and $2, 000 with my Best Buy Mastercard.
She asks me then, " Sir, If we were able to get you a credit line in the ballpark range of your other credit cards, would you consider, or be willing to re-open your Capital One card that you closed with us " ??
I said , Absolutely !!
She then states that she will " talk it over with her colleagues " and see what they can do.
This was on Wednesday March 27th. So I'm waiting to see now, If Capital One will FINALLY step up to the plate and finally TREAT me like a " Valued Customer " , rather than just SAYING those words.
Now, right before I wrote this, I logged into my Capital One CLOSED account to see if anything had been changed. Well, To my surprise my account was reopened on Friday March 29th, By whom, I have no idea, I assume the lady at corporate that I had talked to. But the credit line still states $500, we shall see what happens the next few days.
I don't mind waiting my turn, But darnitt 5 YEARS???? To the poor guy that stated he was a member for 10 years, WOW!!!!
I don't want to hear the words " Conservative " ever again from Capital One . " Conservative " could have been giving me a nickel or dime credit increase, NOW THAT'S CONSERVATIVE!!!! But not giving a penny in 5 years ??? To a so called " Valued Customer " ?? That's what they tell me each year, that I'm a " Valued Customer ", LOL, So that's how you treat all of us " Valued Customers " ???
Was this review helpful?
Beware of the Annual Membership Fee
Posted by
I have had a Capital One card since 2003. I recently moved to a different town and received a forwarded bill from Capital One informing me that I owed a $39.00 membership fee by July 21st. I immediately contacted them to update my new mailing address and was informed that now since I did not pay my membership fee on time, I was now being charged a late fee!! I explained that I had just received the letter in the mail that day and that there was a post office delay due to my forwarding address, I also explained that I did not have a chance to update my new address yet but had a zero balance on the account so was not worried about it. Despite never having paid them late in the 10 years I had the card, they treated me very rude and unprofessional and told me I should have known my membership fee would be due. When I told them that I was a single parent and did not have the extra money to pay for fees I was told that there is nothing they can do to help me.
One supervisor hung up on me because she could not effectively justify the fees and her script did not have answers to my questions. I had asked her if she had a Capital One card with a yearly fee and if she felt that it was fair to make me pay a fee in addition to the interest I have paid over the years when I have used the card. They deducted $10 from the membership fee, but I still had to pay them $29.00 by phone to avoid getting a negative report to my credit bureau. I had told the Capital One representative that I was going to be voicing my horrible experience and cancelling the card she responded that it was my choice to do that but it wouldn't change my balance that was immediately due.
Unfortunately one of my other credit cards was recently bought out by Capital One and I am not happy. I am making this card my first priority to pay off and never ever do business with them again....ever.
Was this review helpful?
State Attorney General Goes After Capital One for Debt Collection and Re-Aging
Posted by
January 25, 2010
West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw announced Friday that his office has sued credit card issuer Capital One and a debt collection agency for "unconscionable conduct in connection with their credit card lending and collection practices."
The complaint alleges that Capital One Bank, a subsidiary of Capital One Financial Corp. (NYSE: COF), tricked consumers into payment plans by sending them solicitations disguised as offers of new credit. The arrangement allowed Cap One to re-age the debt so that it did not fall under the statute of limitations.
The offer was sent to consumers who had charged-off accounts with Capital One or other creditors. Under the terms of the offer, Capital One agreed to provide the consumer $1 of new credit in exchange for the consumer's agreeing to transfer the entire account balance of a charged-off account to the new credit card account.
"Capital One's practice of offering nominal extension of credit, if and only if the consumer agreed to pay off a debt too old to be sued on is tantamount to loan sharking," McGraw said in a statement.
The complaint also alleges that Capital One issued multiple low-limit credit cards, each charging exorbitant fees, rather than raising credit limits on consumers' existing accounts. Also that Capital One "unconscionably" imposed over-the-limit fees on consumers' accounts, sold services to consumers who could not benefit from the services and billed and attempted to collect for credit card accounts that were never activated.
Attorney General McGraw's complaint names a collection agency, COSI Receivables Management, but does not say how the company was involved and how or if it was at fault. Also named in the complaint are three collection and recovery units of Capital One.
Was this review helpful?
Additional Info: for Capital One Bank Being the Worst Bank ....... EVER!
Posted by
1680 CAPITAL ONE DRIVE, VIRGINIA -- Fine. Since you people need it spelled out for you, and you don't want to take my word for it that this institution is the absolute EPITOME of incompetence, here goes:
1. On Tuesday, September 14, 2010, a mere 24 hours after Capital One's takeover of Chevy Chase Savings Bank, I happened to go to my local branch's ATM to take out a mere $40 from my savings account. When the balance slip came out, I nearly passed out. It said there was only $7,300 in there when I knew there was over $33,000 in there. I immediately called these new "owners" of the bank and could not believe what I was told. Here I'm using MY ATM card to take money out of MY savings account and these clowns told me that the $40 came out of one of my PARENTS' accounts. How ridiculous is THAT !! And the reason why ? Just because two weeks earlier, we added my name to five of their accounts for the ONLY reason being so I could call the bank and ask questions on their behalf. That's it. My dad is 92. My mom is 88. They don't hear or see too well so I'm trying to help them out. There was never any request or any mention WHATSOEVER of the mingling of my parents' funds with mine. What were they thinking ? Oh, yeah, that's right ! They WEREN'T!
2. In October of 2010, my mom went into the bank and changed one of their savings accounts to Capital One's "Simple Savings" in order to get that better 1.1% APY when she was previously getting some joke amount of. 25%. So when we got the November statement, the rate was quoted on the statement sheet as being. 7%. We made that first call to Customer Service who told us she was in fact getting 1.1%. They had no explanation as to why their OWN paperwork clearly said. 7%. The December statement came and the same thing happened. We finally called the local branch Manager that my mom deals with to find out what was going on. She admitted to me that upon calling Capital One's "Customer Advocacy" group that there were errors that were providing incorrect information on statements.
3. In November of 2010, they had the wrong social security number for my mom on a CD confirmation mailing. We then called both their "800" customer-service number and the local Branch manager who assured us that it was only wrong on that CD page, but that their SYSTEM had the correct number which was confirmed with them on the phone. So three weeks ago, when my mom got the 1099 in the mail, it STILL had the wrong social security number. Like it's not bad enough that these idiots had the wrong number on internal paperwork -- now, they're giving the Feds the wrong number, too !
4. What kind of normal bank does NOT have "transfer" slips ? My mom has to do a number of transfer transactions between a checking account and one of my dad's money-market accounts that receives electronic deposits of some Morgan Stanley dividend checks. Every time she has to go in to the branch and fill out a withdrawal slip from the money-market, a deposit slip to the checking and ends up receiving three receipts she has to deal with. What a PAIN !
I could go on, but for what purpose? On the afternoon of February 10, 2011, I made three attempts at calling the office of Capital One President and CEO Richard Fairbank. I know for a fact that his office is right here in McLean, VA, the main office for Capital One. When I called the main number of 703-720-1000, I specifically asked to be connected to the ASSISTANT to Richard Fairbank. I'm not stupid enough to ask for Fairbank himself. Each of the three times I was calling this local McLean, VA corp. office, I was connected to a "Senior Customer Service" person either in Dallas, Texas or other such venue five states away! I highly resent that. Whenever I have called any CEO's office, I can ALWAYS be connected to the assistant. So after that miserable treatment, that fine evening of February 10, 2011, I filed an on-line complaint with the Feds -- the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. That's the group under the Treasury Department that oversees national banks since the FDIC is not over Capital One. I believe they need to send their bank examiners into this asylum and do a thorough investigation into the blatant incompetence of this group. On Monday, February 14, I got called by someone at Capital One in Texas who basically gave me a half-baked apology, saying they would correct my mom's 1099 ASAP, but hey, what are they going to do about all the other things? The damage is done. Best thing for us to do is simply close out our nine accounts and be GONE from these jerks !
Was this review helpful?
Holding my $1,500 hostage against their own policies.
Posted by
LAUREL, MARYLAND -- After I refinanced my mortgage I changed my auto-payment on the Chevy Chase Bank website to stop paying my mortgage automatically to Capital One (which owns Chevy Chase Bank) because I had refinanced with another lender. However, the "cancel payment" order apparently only applied to a single month, and a month later Capital One auto-deducted a payment of over $1,500.00 from my account. When I saw this deduction had taken place, I called Capital One two days later to tell them this payment had been made in error. They said that although my checking account showed the deduction, they had no record that they had received the payment (electronically... between their checking division and mortgage division. No record). They said they couldn't resolve it until they showed it had been received.
At the end of the week I called again. Now they said the payment had been processed on the day I called, AFTER I called and reported it was an error, but they would not refund it for ten business days because it was their policy to hold all funds for that amount of time before releasing them. They said it did not matter that I had called before the payment was received, or that the account was closed; it was their policy to hold all funds for ten business days regardless, and the money would be refunded to me by check in two weeks (ten business days plus weekends). On the Monday after the supposed "release date," I called to confirm that the check had been mailed. I was given a runaround and the woman kept telling me it was their policy to hold it for ten business days, and then it took the mail 3-5 days to arrive. She kept repeating this over and over, even after I said multiple times that I understood that and all I wanted was for them to tell me it HAD been mailed. She said they showed no record of that, but that she would do research and call me back.
Needless to say she didn't, so the next day I called back. This time I was told that not only had it not been mailed, but that only the previous day it had been sent to the cash department for processing. I asked how this was possible, because I had called twice before to discuss the problem with them and had been told each time, by multiple individuals, that the problem was on their records and that according to their policies it would be refunded on a specific date. I was told by the service person that she didn't know why, and that she had no timeframe for the refund of my money, but that the process of refunding it had just begun the day before.
Now it's 19 days later, and even though they have no account associated with these funds, no right or reason to hold it according to their own policies, they're holding it anyway, apparently because they can, and won't tell me when or if I'll get it back. They're being bullies, in essence, just for the sake of it. The attitude is, "What are you going to do about it?" I could really use that $1,500, but no amount of calling and explaining or arguing with them is making them give it back. They don't want to, so they won't.
I've been a Chevy Chase Bank customer for over ten years, and I actually refinanced that mortgage after they were bought by Capital One specifically because Capital One introduced a bunch of nasty, harassing policies relating to their mortgage division (in short: if I didn't pay by the first of the month, they called to harass me and ask "if you plan to pay your mortgage this month," even though I've never been late and always pay within the grace period, which is completely legal and fine). I didn't want to do business with them anymore after that, but this is simply a nightmare-- I knew they were bad, but not THIS bad. I'd warn anybody reading this to stay far away from Chevy Chase Bank and Capital One. It's really been a learning experience for me about just how corrupt a bank can be.
Was this review helpful?
Denied Increase After Brother Murdered
Posted by
CITY OF INDUSTRY, CALIFORNIA -- Oct 5, 2013 my brother was beaten to death by 4 men, one with brass knuckles. His wallet and cell phone were missing when ambulance and police arrived. I called Capital One Bank and requested an increase so I could purchase a ticket to get to my brothers funeral and support my mother and father since I'm the oldest.I have had this account since Apr 2007, never late and I was just asking because I needed to get home. My brothers body was held for two weeks because it was part of a crime scene. I finally borrowed the money to get home.
As consumers we have to stop doing business with those that only lets the money flow one way, into their coffers. I called a few days later and I canceled both accounts, I have been a great, on time paying customer for 7 yrs on the one card and only two on the second. I know they won't go out of business by me taking mine away, but at least their bottom line won't keep getting fat by me since I'm so undervalued. I have a credit card still, but not with them, that's a personal problem I know but I still feel as though since I have been paying bills on time I shouldn't have to wait ten days as I was told by the rep. Since my brothers body was held I did get to attend his funeral.
My mother has lost it and cries nightly about this senseless act. I don't know how I got through it, but I know I don't care for Capital One anymore. Sorry experience, very sorry customer care I think, a multi billion dollar company can't see to take care of those responsible customers that's the reason for their solid growth, not good at all.
Was this review helpful?
Scammed Into Paying Off Credit Card Early
Posted by
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA -- I have a platinum Capital One card I wanted to used to rent a car because it provided insurance saving me $20 a day with the rental agency. At the airport while out of town I called the credit card company to pay down my balance enough in order to have the funds for the rental transaction.
I was told the only way for it to go through immediately was to pay Western Union or moneygram and call them back with the transaction number, all other methods would be the next day. I was fine with this and found an airport terminal with a Western Union where I set up this transaction paying over $400. I called back with the number for it to go through to be told it would not go through for two more days.
My account had been over balance for 28 days which could not be released. So the lie by the first agency was in order to trick me into paying off my entire balance when I could have just paid them $80 as my regular payment. They tricked me into spending all of my travel money on the card that was not unavailable to me. Also I had to pay for the rental car agencies scam insurance (I don't own a car and have private insurance) this cost me another $20 a day for the length of my trip adding up to another 200.
I can't split the rental into different transactions and it must go on that scam of a card with Capital One in order to get the insurance. The agents the second time around told me first it would be available tomorrow then realized they were again correct and it would be available in a few more days because of the cut off time and weekend. In response to stealing $600 dollars from me and ruining my vacation they gave me a $35 credit.
If I had not been lied to in the first call I would have just had to pay the expensive insurance and be done with it. Now I have paid off a credit card and paid for the expensive insurance because they are scam artists.
Was this review helpful?
Horrible Service
Posted by
IRATE. I have never been so angry with a company in my life. Granted I screwed up and never paid my credit card bills, and it ending up in collections, I eventually got my sh*t straight and paid it off. HOWEVER, once I logged online to double check and make sure everything was taken care of, there was still a balance! I spoke to the highest person I could through the collection agency and they told me that the balance was completely zeroed out, so anything that shows up online would be Capital One's work, but I should give it another week JUST IN CASE. I did. In fact, I waited TWO. 30 days later, I still have a outstanding balance when I log online.
I called Capital One directly, and since the foreign girl couldn't help me, I asked for her supervisor. His name was Andrew. He's the most pathetic excuse for a Senior Supervisor. He refused to connect me with HIS supervisor, and told me he's only allowed to contact that person if there's some problem he just cannot fix. WELL, he couldn't fix mine, so who else am I supposed to contact? I understand, "Kill them with kindness." Oh he did that alright. He also hung up on me. Professional? I told him that I will come back to him and the company as a whole if this outstanding balance [snip] with my credit.
Since Capital One seems to be high and mighty enough to not have a customer service line for service compliments or complaints, I guess I'll just broadcast it everywhere I can!
Was this review helpful?
Deceptive Business Practices
Posted by
I purchased a washer and dryer from Best Buy on the 18 months deferred interest. The offer would expire May 17, 2012. I made another purchase two months later on the same offer which the 18 months would expire July 2012. I made all of my minimum payments of $25 early every month. On May 15, 2012, two days before the offer on the first purchase expired I paid $800.00, which by my calculations based on the first terms should have more than paid off the first purchase. 12 days later I paid the remaining ballance on the May statement of 611.49. Mid August of 2012 I got a phone call from Capitol One saying I was 60 days late on my payments and I owed $652.00. I told them it was a mistake on their part and went home to find my records. I called them back and explained what I had done as described above. They said when I made the $800 payment I actually owed $872 by May 17 because when I made the second purchase it changed how each payment was applied to each balance so I had mis calculated what I owed on the first purchase, so they charged me over $600 interest plus late fees. They said I should have read my statements and checked my online statement even though I thought it was paid off ( who does that?). I paid the full amount they requested and asked if they would not report the late payment on my credit because I had paid over $1,400 in a two week period. They said they had done nothing technically wrong, it was all my fault. They did refund half of the $652 I paid but refused to remove the late payment from my credit even when I asked they keep the refund and remove the late payment. In 20 years of credit, several of those with Capitol One accounts, I have zero late payments until now. They are obviously more interested in trying to destroy a persons credit than anything probably because then they can charge more interest. I immediately canceled my account and filed complaints with BBB and everywhere else I could think of.....CAPITOL ONE IS A DECEPTIVE COMPANY.
Was this review helpful?
CaptialOne System Errors Causes Customers Suffer a Big Lost.
Posted by
The CapitalOne Credit card company advertises and frequently sends promotion checks to customers allowing them to use checks for purchases, cash, or transfers with no transaction fees. However, their system automatically put on hold customers credit account for trivial/wrong reason. Consequently, customers suffer charge back for returned checks and fee for cancelled checks even they have never spent over limit on their CapitalOne credit accounts.
On 7/17/2012 I paid $2000 for my credit line of $2000. CapitalOne accepted this payment and my balance became -$90. That meant CapitalOne owed me $90 and my balance had $2000 available. The next day, 7/18/2012 I wrote a CaptialOne promotion check #12923 of $1800 and deposited to my checking account at Bank of America. However, until 5 days later, on 7/23/2012 I knew the check was denied. Bank of America charged back $12 for returned check and subtracted $1800 from my bank account. I also suffered fees from other cancelled checks due to insufficient checking account at BOA.
On 7/24/2012 My account balance is $0, my available credit $2000, I wrote another check #12924 of $1820. Still, again my account is on hold due to other banks deposit $3000 into my account on 7/26/2012.
I contacted CapitalOne five times about this problem. They said: "An account will be put on hold if there is (1) Large amount of payment or (2) Multiple payments. It is automatically system, they cannot change it.
These are wrong reasons because Capital accepts large amount and multiple payments from customers. Why did they accept payment and then put on hold their customer account? They can put on hold the amount deposited until it is cleared. But they should not put on hold consumer credit line or their entire credit account. Put on hold credit line and put on hold the check is different matter.
CapitalOne said they want to make sure the amount received is cleared. However, the amount should be cleared before posting the transaction. They should post only after the amount is cleared and should give the accurate balance on their customer credit accounts. For example, it is very confused for customer having balance negative -90 after paying $2000, but credit is not available as if they paying late. The payment from customer in large amount to CapitalOne is not customers' fault. Customers do not spend over limit on their account. Instead, customers pay to increase the amount available on their account. It is different from late payment.
CapitalOne also failed to notify me about their decline as they stated in section "Important Information About this Offer" on the info how to use Capitalcheck promotion.
I believe hundred thousand customers have been suffered such wrong and unfair practice. FTC and STATE should investigate to protect other Citizens from this error.
I want CaptialOne pay back any charge back fee by Bank of America, other cancelled check fees, and other lost due to CapitalOne system error.
Was this review helpful?
Next Page >
Top of Page
Next Page >
Consumer Resources
Company Responses
Site Rules
Terms & Conditions
Privacy Policy
About Us


text:
Barrington Chair
- Overview
A subtle camelback outlined with antiqued nailheads gives this chair an eye-catching silhouette. Designed with a gently pitched back and flared legs, its versatile style complements both contemporary and traditional interiors.
- 20" wide x 24" deep x 40" high
- Cognac chair is made of genuine top grain leather.
- Rubber wood legs are hand finished in Espresso.
- Metal Bronze-finished nailheads accentuate edges.
- Dimensions & Care
- Crafted from kiln-dried hardwood.
- Constructed using sturdy mortise-and-tenon joinery with triangular corner blocks for extra support.
- Overall: 20" wide x 24" deep x 40" high
- Seat: 19.5" wide x 17" deep x 6" thick
- Seat Height: 20"
- Backrest: 16.5" wide x 20" high
- Legs: 1.75" square, 14" high
- Distance Between Legs: 15.75" at front; 13" at back; 16" front to back
- Maximum Weight Capacity: 200 pounds
- Weight: 15 pounds
- Avoid direct heat and sunlight, dust and vacuum regularly.
- Thorough cleaning by a leather specialist only.
- Shipping Info
This is a general shipping item.
View our Shipping Information
Customer Service - Shipping Information
Return Policy
At Pottery Barn, we take great pride in the quality and craftsmanship of our products. Attention to design, materials, safety and construction is our priority. We carefully inspect your order prior to shipment. Upon receipt, please inspect your purchase and notify us of any damage; we will arrange for a prompt replacement. If, within 7 days for Quick Ship upholstery and 30 days for all other products, you are dissatisfied for any reason, you may return your purchase for a refund of the merchandise value.
We cannot accept returns on monogrammed, personalized, special-order items, or on items damaged through normal wear and tear. We also cannot accept returns of final-sale items which are identified by a price which ends in .99.
For returns of items purchased from your Pottery Barn registry, we will gladly provide a refund or exchange for the merchandise within 90 days of your event or within 90 days of purchase, whichever date is later.
You may return merchandise through the mail for a refund or replacement. For detailed procedures for returning items through the mail, please contact Customer Service at 1.888.779.5176, 7 days a week, 5:00am - 9:00pm (PT).


text:
Forecast Lighting F192470 Alentejo 1-light Pendant in Merlot Bronze finish
We're Sorry, This item is no longer availableFor your convenience, we recommend:
Replacement Options
Ceiling LightsView all items in this category
The Forecast Lighting F192470 Alentejo 1-light Pendant in Merlot Bronze finish is the perfect addition to bring that extra touch of class into your existing interior design. The Alentejo 1-light Pendant in Merlot Bronze finish is finished off in a Bronze tone that will last many years. Operates on standard 120V voltage. Forecast lighting was founded in the 1970s, originating from Southern California. Since their creation, Forecast lighting has designed thousands of contemporary lighting styles that compliment modern living styles and interior design. In 2010, Forecast Lighting was brought under the Phillips lighting line and is now owned and operated by Phillips. You can check out Forecast Lighting in showrooms globally.
- Height: 9"
- Width: 4 3/4"
- Max. Height: 105"
- Lights / Wattage: 1 x 60W
Customer Reviews
Write Your Own Review:
Questions & Answers
If you are a new customer, please register first:
You may also be interested in the following products:
Kichler Soft Contemporary/Casual Lifestyle Inverted Pendant 6 Light Fixture - Brushed Nickel
Kichler European Pendalette 3 Light Fixture - Carre Bronze
Progress Lighting P5188-0930K9Progress Lighting P5188-0930K9
Progress Lighting LED Ceiling Light, 17W 12-1/8" 1-Light Pendant Fixture - Brushed Nickel
Progress Lighting P3675-0930K9Progress Lighting P3675-0930K9
Progress Lighting LED Ceiling Light, Maier 17W 18" 3-Light Flush-Mount Fixture - Brushed Nickel


text:
Over 4000
live races
every year
Racing UK is the UK's leading horseracing TV channel, broadcasting over 4,000 live races every year.
Feeds from
34 top UK
Watch exclusive live feeds and extensive archive footage from 34 of the UK's top racecourses.
Alongside our unrivalled racing coverage, every subscriber recieves over 30 free pairs of tickets a year, free bets, and more.
Every race
any time
Whether you're at home, work or on the go. You can watch Racing UK anywhere with our new Anywhere service.
Watch via Racing UK anywhere on any 3 platforms
Sign Up to Racing UK Anywhere
Watch via cable TV
Watch Racing UK overseas with our international subscription
Living abroad and want to watch the best of British racing? Our international subscription allows you to view abroad via your desktop for only £29.99 per month.