## Oblongs

Last week while we were waiting for a swimming lesson to start my daughter told me that one of her teachers had got “higgledy piggledy” about oblongs. I asked what she meant and she said that she’d accidentally called one a rectangle and had to correct herself and had informed the class that at her last school she’d had to call them rectangles but at this school had to call them oblongs and sometimes got higgledy piggledy about this. I asked my daughter why they couldn’t call them rectangles and she said that it was because squares can be rectangles too.

This set off a lengthy chain of thoughts in my head. Firstly, I was quite impressed by the fact a 5 year old could articulate all this about knowledge about shapes so well. Then I thought, does it really matter whether they call them oblongs or rectangles? Then I thought, wait a minute, why are we prohibiting the use of rectangle because it can also mean a square, but we are not prohibiting the use of oblong when it can also mean an ellipse? My chain of thought then jumped down a rabbit hole questioning whether we should actually be referring to regular or equilateral rectangular parallelograms and non – regular/equilateral parallelograms. Why are we allowing children to call a shape a triangle, when it is one possible type of triangle in a family of triangles, but not allowing them to call a shape a rectangle when it is only one possible rectangle in a family of rectangles. These thoughts stewed around in my head for a while and I thought I’d ask the twittersphere for their opinions on the matter.

These opinions fell into a couple of camps. The first cam thought that oblong was a nice enough word and they didn’t mind others using it but preferred not to themselves. The second camp felt that it was important to distinguish between an oblong and a square so important to use oblong not rectangle and the third camp thought that actually it was better to use rectangles due to the elliptical oblongs. I questioned some of the respondents from the second two groups a little further to see why they fell into these groups. Those in the second seemed unaware that the word oblong also meant ellipse and those in the third thought it was more important to excluded ellipses than squares. Stating that it was easy enough to explain away the special case that is the square.

I’ve spend rather a lot of time considering this, and am now not really sure what I think on the issue. I can’t see a problem with using a rectangle and explaining away the square as a special case. We call all triangles triangles and expand as and when required. No one bothers about calling a non-rectangular parallelogram a parallelogram, despite the fact that that could mean a rectangle. But again I’m not sure I’m massively strongly against the term oblong either. It could open up a good discussion about the term and how it could apply to ellipses, although this probably is a little too much for a year 1 classroom. I think I’m leaning towards rectangle as a preference though, as explaining away a special case is, for me, much more preferable than ignoring a whole class of oblongs.

*If you have views on this, whichever way you lean, I’d love to hear them, either in the comments or via social media.*

## Reverse percentages and compound interest

The other day a discussion arose in my year 10 class that I found rather interesting. There was a question on interest which incorporated compound interest and reverse percentages. One student was telling the other how to find the answer to the reverse part, “you need to divide it, because it was that amount times by the multiplier to get this amount and divide is the inverse of times.” All good so far, then they discussed how to complete it if it was a reverse of more than one year, “so in that case it’s the new amount dived by the multiplier to the power of how many years.” I was pleased at the discussion so I didn’t really interject.

Then one of them aid, “if I’m looking for two years ago, can’t I just times it by the multiplier to the power -2? Wouldn’t that work.” I thought this was an excellent thought process. The other student disagreed though, sating “no, it has to be divide.” So I thought at this point I’d better interject a little.

“Does it give you the same answer?” I asked. They both thought about it and tried it and discussed it and said yes. So I asked “does it ALWAYS give the same number?” they tried a number of scenarios using different amounts, different interest rates and different numbers of years. Eventually they had convinced themselves. “Yes, yes it is always the same.”

“So is it a valid method then?” I probed. Some more discussion, then one ventured “yes. It must be.”

“Why does it work?”, I then asked. And left them discussing it.

When I came back to the pair I asked if they could explain why it works and one of them said, “we think that it’s because multiplying by a negative power is the same as dividing by the positive version.”

## Share this via:

## Like this: