Vox Humana wrote:
> "Jude" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> .
> >
> >
> > Ummm, the child is 9. I thought it was pretty good that she was able to
> > identify that yeast is another ingredient used to leaven breads.
>
> Well, there are many ways to leaven thing including steam. You ignored my
> points. First you are mixing various types of leavening agents - chemical
> and biological.


I'm not mixing anything,

Second, you are not making a meaningful comparison since
> you aren't letting the yeast work.


I'm not making any comparisons.

Exactly what does the experiment prove
> other than that not allowing the yeast to ferment is not an valid way to
> leaven baked goods?

Well, that's new knowledge for her. Shame, shame, she learned something
today!

It doesn't compare the leavening ability of yeast vs.
> baking powder. It just illustrates that not following directions is a
> recipe for failure.

What a terrible concept for a 9 year old to learn. Especially in
relation to baking.
>
> The
> > only variable is that she is changing the leavening agent.
>
> Except that baking SODA is not a leaving agent.


Most 9 year old kids kow that, right? Maybe you should write World Book
and criticize them - that's where she found info about baking soda as a
leavening agent.

It is PART of a system that
> requires an acid. Baking POWDER is a complete system and is a leavening
> agent. Also, all leavening agents only work in a specified range of
> temperature and over a specified time. By not giving sufficient time for
> the yeast to ferment you have designed a flaw in the protocol. Again, it
> makes no sense to say that a particular agent is inferior when you design a
> system that guarantees failure.
>
>
> She will
> > substitute 2 t of yeast for the 1 t each of soda and powder in the
> > original recipe. She will see why it doesn't work, and she will learn
> > that yeast leavens differently that soda or powder.
>
> No, she will see that it doesn't work but there is no clear reason WHY it
> doesn't work because you haven't design the experiment to include TIME as a
> variable. The only conclusion one could make was that yeast isn't a
> leavening agent.

Or, perhaps, her conclusion (that yeast cannot simply be substituted
for pwder or soda, but must be handled differenly) was erronious?
Seeing as how that's a different conclusion than the ONLY one that
exists.

In fact, one could argue that the yeast might be dead
> since you have no control to prove otherwise.

The recipe as written is the control.

Again, this starts to get way
> too complex for a 9 year old so why clutter the system with meaningless
> comparisons?

Kids have to start somewhere. Most leaning starts off at the beginning,
then gets more challenging. She was interested in this project, that
means she is actually enjoying her schoolwork at an appropriate level
for her. Shocking. I should be flogged, tarred, and feathered for
allowing my child to design her own sciencde fair project and see what
happens, then discuss it with her to help her process her results and
learning.

A more fair comparison would be to add the yeast to one batch
> and the baking powder to another and bake-off a portion a set intervals.
> Given enough samples over a long enough period of time you would see that
> the leavening properties of baking power diminishes and the leavening power
> of the yeast increases with time.
>
> There really is no
> > other variable in effect here.
>
> See above. You are obviously wrong.

I'll be sure to tell her teacher, who agreed that there was 1
independent variable in this experiment. The leavening agents. Want to
post your phone number, in case the teacher has any questions about why
you disagree?
>
>
> Her science teachers agreed that this
> > was an entirely appropriate experiment for a 4th grade.
>
> And of course, a 4th. grade teach is the ultimate authority on science.

For a 4th grade student, yes. She obviosly knows far more than you
about what is age-appropriate for a child.

> That's why all the very brightest students can be found majoring in
> education leaving the slackers to study physics, mathematics, chemistry,
> engineering, medicine, etc. Oh, wait, it was just the opposite when I
> attended college.

And that's why all the physics majors and chem majors can be found
sequencing curriculum and knowing just what is developmentally
approprite for children, right?
>
> This is not a
> > college-level organic chem class.
>
> This would be an experiment for inorganic chemistry. When you mix in the
> yeast, you would have to take it to biochemistry.

Standard curriculum for the 4th grade in any state, as we all know.


>
> Its the elementary school sciecne
> > fair, and a kid whose mom cooks and bakes, thus a fun project to try,>
> > emulating Mom.
>
> Oh, sorry. I thought this was about science, not emulating mom. I also
> didn't realize that having fun and being logical were incompatible concepts.
>

You're right; it was terribly illogical of my child to think that she
could come up with a theory and test it out, them learn from what she
did.
>
> > Again, this is a fourth grade. It is not MY assumption, it is HER
> > hypothesis. A hypothesis for a science fair project is simply a theory
> > to be tested. How many fourth graders have a deep knowledge of how CO2
> > is produced by chemical leavening agents?
>
> Sorry, when you said that she researched how CO2 was produced, I took your
> word for it. Maybe you meant something else?

I meant what research is in 4th grade - she read the encyclopedia and
checked a few websites. She learned about bubbles causing rise. How
many other 4th graders could tell you that's why bread rises when it's
baking?

>
> My knowedge has zip, zilc,
> > zero to do with this. Amazingly enough, I'm a mom who is actually
> > making HER do her own science fair project and see what she can learn.
> > My knowledge does not come into play here. The purpose of the science
> > fair is for a child to deisgn an experiment and then to perform it.
> > They analyze the results and gain new knowledge based on what happens.
> > The purpose of her experiment os so she CAN learn more about how
> > leavening agents work. Not to mention that since the original recipe
> > calls for a combo or soda and powder, it's probably a good hypothesis.
>
> First, you didn't post the original recipe.

First, you didn't ask.

Secondly, I find it
> inconsistent to first argue that the girl is young and naive and then to
> insist that she will be able to learn anything from a muddled experiment.

I'll tell her to forget everything she learned today, then.

I
> have suggested a couple of ways to simplify the experiment so one can draw
> clear conclusions that are explainable. And, while you claim that the girl
> is on her own, she is using YOUR recipe - one that uses two potential
> leavening agents, thus mudding the waters.

How'd it get to be my recipe? Just cuz I own the cookbook?

I agree that the experiment is
> your daughter's, I think that as a parent you could ask questions and be
> part of a discussion that could guide your daughter. I guess that some
> people see parenting as a hands-off endeavor.

Yep, you got me there. Spending my entire Sunday in the kitchen helping
my kid bake bread is a classic example of hands-off parenting.
Especially considering the amount of discussion we had about things AS
THEY WERE HAPPENING, the way real valid learning occurs.

> >
> > I disagree that it would be more educational to bake only variations on
> > the bread and never follow the original recipe we are using.
>
> The "original recipe" is the first in a chain of errors. Unless your
> daughter found this recipe herself, you have interjected yourself into the
> process and therefore can not claim an "arm's length" relationship.
>

I gave her a stack of cookbooks, and she decided which recipe looked
like a good one to try. I believe most people would consider that
finding the recipe herself, of do you disagree with that too?


> What would
> > she learn from that? The purpose of comparison is to have 1 loaf that
> > comes out exactly as it should, following the recipe to a T, and then
> > vary the recipe to see what happens. Without 1 loaf made exactly as
> > directed, we have no 'control' to compare to.
>
> At this point it is impossible to tell. That is my point. In addition, we
> have no idea if the baking soda in the "original recipe" is included as a
> leavening agent or as a way to increase browning, enhance gluten formation,
> or to modify the flavor. You have made the assumption that baking soda is
> always a leavening agent- but it isn't. See, the recipe is inappropriate to
> test your daughter's hypothesis.

I'll be sure to tell her that. She was quite interested to find out
that the powder-only loaf did not prown well, and was curious as to why
thatwas. She listed that as one thing for further research. Silly
child, she should have known all that before she did this. It's common
knowldge for most 9 year olds.
>
> >
> > You do realize that most 4th grade science fair experiments consist of
> > putting food coloring into a vase with a carnatin and seeing the flower
> > absorb the color? This one she came up with is perfectly appropriate
> > for a little kid.
>
> Your premise about the flowers doesn't support your argument about
> appropriateness of your daughter's project. You also ignored all my points
> that explained why the experiment isn't appropriate because it introduces
> too many concepts and leads to no clear conclusions.

I'll make sure she erases the conclusions she came to, then.
>
>
> perhaps a high school students with many more years
> > of sceintific experimentation would be interested in the advanced ideas
> > you propose, but not a little kid.
>
>
> That's the point. Unless you streamline the experiment, it would take an
> older student to design and execute the experiment, analyze the data, and
> compose a logical discussion of the data.

So I probably should have squelched her right away when she came up
with her own idea for the project, and made her feel stupid, rather
than praising her for thinking up something that was in line with her
interests. That would make me a much better mother.