Wednesday, August 26, 2009

A More Concise Shepard Krech

Your Ecological Indian author wrestles with non-traditional historical sources here.

Click through and read his analysis about whether early American settlers were responsible for the extinction of megafauna.

In the comments, evaluate whether this article is more accessible to high school students. Defend your conclusion.

(Don't go crazy here - one paragraph is enough).

Here's a pic for Emmet: The remains of seven butchered mammoths found in Wyoming.

42 comments:

  1. I think that it is a little more accessible than Buffaloed because it is shorter and supports multiple sides of an argument. It could have better use for classroom discussions than Buffaloed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. They're on about the same level. Sure, this one's shorter, and it even includes graphics, but this analysis requires even deeper levels of knowledge, including ancient history, ecology, and geography. It's more complex, and the vocabulary is certainly more advanced than in "Buffaloed."

    ReplyDelete
  3. This article is an easier read and is more accessible for high school students. It held my interest for a longer period of time than "Buffaloed" did. This article provides a wide variety of evidence, as opposed to "Buffaloed", where Krech beats the reader over the head with similar pieces of evidence. Also, the article is shorter, making it a quicker read and, thus, a bit easier.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Although this article may be more accessible and attractive for high school students, it isn't miles ahead of "Buffaloed". I found both articles to be fairly interesting, and the shorter length and cool graphics of this article do not necessarily make for a better read. Yes, Krech does go over the top a few times by presenting the same evidence over and over, but not in an attempt to bore the reader but to emphasize his point. Because of this, I believe "Buffaloed" presents better class discussions because it lets the reader go into depth about a few topics rather than to only scratch the surface of many topics.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It is a little more accesible to high school students then "buffaloed". This article for me was way more interesting. After awhile "buffaloed" lost my intrest, and i got tired of the repatition. But i do agree that better class discussions come for the "buffaloed" article because it describes everything more in depth.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I beliveve that this article is much more accessible to high shool students than the other. For starters, it is significantly shorter than the other, which will keep them attentive much longer. Also, the words used and the tone that this one was written was much easier to understand, wasn't repetitive, and actually keeps you entertained. Also, this article allows you to think for yourself with options rather than telling you the same thing over and over again.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Articles online may be more accessible to high school students, being on the internet, but that doesn't mean that it is better. For me, reading articles on the internet is difficult, because I get so easily distracted, and aesthetically, I can't concentrate as well on something that's not in my hands, like the "Buffaloed" article. Maybe I'm a bit biased because I don't enjoy reading things on the internet, but I found Krech's article to be more interesting, simply because it was more in-depth. Shorter does not necessarily prove better if it's not more concise. And while the pictures and infographics were interesting to look at, I honestly didn't really notice them, but forced myself to look at them. I was more concerned about the text. If something can't be communicated in words and needs to be shown in a picture, then for me, the author didn't do his job.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Personally, I preferred this article to "Buffaloed" simply because I found the subject matter more interesting...I didn't see much of a difference in the vocabulary/reading level. In particular, I appreciated the way he made his points here more clearly and concisely and didn't recount them over and over. However, I think "Buffaloed" was probably more appropriate for classroom discussion; it allowed the class to explore this particular topic thoroughly and exemplified how to intelligently but firmly prove a point.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I would have to say the "Buffaloed" article was more accessible to high school students. This article was shorter, but also more difficult to understand. In the "Buffaloed" article the author beats you over the head with his evidence and ideas. Its more easy to understand what his point was and he also had very strong evidence to back him up. It seemed like Krech knew more about the subject of his other work than this article.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Compared to the "Buffaloed" article, this article wasn't as captivating. I think the "Buffaloed" article portrayed the devastation of the buffalo population better so it was more interesting. This article was more broad and had a longer timeline. I could never clearly picture the destruction of the megafauna because there wasn't enough numbers. Now, Krech put A LOT of numbers, but that made it more interesting for me because it seemed like he had more evidence to back himself up. The level of reading is about the same, but I liked the "Buffaloed" article better.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I would say this article is not any more accessible then "Buffaloed" because with the internet all these things can be found. I didn't think "Buffaloed was a bad or boring reading. Sure it had a lot of evidence, but I liked that it did to truly show it was a legitimate argument. This website didn't seem to go as in depth as it could.Would most high school kids read this with out a teacher recommending it? I don't say they would.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This article is SO much easier to read/hold one's attention. Every paragraph has something different to contribute and doesn't make you want rip up the article because of redundancy. "Buffaloed" only really offered one opinion, while this article offered multiple. The "Buffaloed" article made the buffalos sound more oppressed, but said so too much.

    ReplyDelete
  14. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/clovis/megafauna.html
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/clovis/debate.html
    These sights give some explanation on the different theories of the extinction at he end of the ice age. It also proposes another source- a comet.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The article was better than "Buffaloed". The text, bullet points, infographics and pictures make the reading more interesting. For most Americans (AP students are not exempt), the packaging of the material can dictate whether or not they enjoy it. Text on top of more text a la Wall Street Journal gives them a sour taste in their mouth to begin with which immediately turns them off from learning. If one has the same problem as Maria, then printing it out is an easy alternative while retaining the package that makes it more appealing. To Zane: would most high school kids read "Buffaloed" without a teacher recommending it?

    ReplyDelete
  16. David, the point of an accessible and easily read article is one where it can be read at the easiest capacity. I don't want to have to print something out to read it-and I don't think others will want to either. People want things handed to them in the easiest form possible. If I hadn't had to read "Buffaloed" and this was our only homework, I may have printed something out, but only because there was no alternative. Even so, the aesthetic annoyances that I got from this article weren't the major ones.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I do think that this article is more accessible to high school students. But I did find Buffaloed more interesting. The things that make this article more accessible are its lack of repetition and its much shorter length. This article has much simpler structure which is another thing that makes it more accessible.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I think that this article is more accessible to high school students. It's layout is much more simple than Buffaloed and didn't repeat information over and over. The content of this article was a little dry compared to Buffaloed, but overall is more accessible.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I think that this article is better suited for high school students because it is concise and to the point. Krech gives the reader enough evidence to understand the debate without overburdening him/her with information. This keeps the reader interested until the end of the article. On the other hand, I like all of the extra little stories that Krech tells in "Buffaloed". These legends and myths give life to all of the evidence that is used in the article. I think that this article is better suited for high school students, but I don't think that "Buffaloed" was that bad either.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Shepard Krech's article on the megafauna is much more accessible to high school students than his "Buffaloed" reading. His writing seems more linear and doesn't over-analyze and continue to share the same information several times over. He goes from where the paleoindians come from to the theories of how the megafaunas went extinct to hs conclusions and so on. In the "Ecological Indian" reading his writing was dry and spent pages explaining one subject. Overall the more concise was an easier read and more to the point, two things that help high school students such as myself.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I think that this article is more accessible to high school students as well. It's easy to access, easy to read, yet still quite informative, not too long, and the graphics give it that little flair that "Buffaloed" was missing. It's concise, interesting, and doesn't simply beat you over the head with 10x the information you need. Whereas "Buffaloed" spent pages on a single bit of information, this article went strait to the point, drew a conclusion, and moved on. However, "Buffaloed" did contain much more information. So in accessibility this article wins, but in sheer amount of information "Buffaloed" would certainly win.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This aricle is obviously more accessible for high school students. When reading the Buffaloed reading, the constant repetitiveness can cause a complete lack of conciousness. You might be reading it, but you are not interpreting the info. With this other article, the wording is much easier and allows room for your own interpretations. Plus it doesn't say "buffalo/bison" one billion times

    ReplyDelete
  24. This article is much more accessible than the "Buffaloed" article and is much easier to read too. The "Buffaloed" article has more information, in part due to its length and is more open ended for discussion... if you can stay focused through the whole article. The "Buffaloed reading was very repetative and dragged on too much. This article had just the right amount of length.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I really don't like reading things online, but I liked how this article had pictures and other graphics to keep my interest. However, I thought that it was harder to read than "Buffaloed" because of some of the references and vocabulary. I grasped the concept of the "Buffaloed" better, but that might just be because there was only one concept to think about.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I think this article is a lot better for high school students because its a lot shorter. The information was straight forward, and didn't overlaps. The author also provided more than one theory, and also went in depth about them too.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The internet article was by far the easiest article to read. Graphics along the way aided in visualizing the events. A simple google search could bring a student to the article. Although it included more difficult vocabulary that occasionally necessitated the reading of a sentence twice, the internet article was still a much quicker read. By being visually appealing, easier to locate, and most of all, shorter, the internet article beats "Buffaloed" by a long shot in a competition of high school accessibility.

    ReplyDelete
  28. This article is more accessible than "Buffaloed". One of the reasons that made me tune out the information in "Buffaloed" is how all related information seems to be spread out. How the buffalo were killed, how many buffalo there were, and who was at fault is all smashed together. But the length of "Buffaloed" could be to blame for that. This article does a much better job of grouping ideas, which is why it is more accessible.

    ReplyDelete
  29. For high school students, this online article was much more accessible. It would be much easier for a student to read the short article while online as opposed to getting the paper copy of "Buffaloed", finding time to read it and take notes. However, the online article sacrifices depth and skips around to different topics rather than having a strong theme throught. The pictures may be attractive to a reader looking at the page, but while I was reading, the constantly changing images were very distracting visually. I preffered reading "Buffaloed", but the article online was more accessible.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I believe this article to be a lot more accessible than "Buffaloed" just for the simple fact that it focuses on the same idea throughout the entire article. It was easier to read, and it's something you don't hear about everyday which makes it more interesting than "Buffaloed". I just like how this article expands on the same subject without really going off track. I also found this article much more enjoyable than "Buffaloed" because it had images which you could look at and get a sense of what the article was talking about visually.

    ReplyDelete
  31. The on-line article was more accessible then the "Buffaloed" article because for one thing it was on-line and it is much easier pulling up an article on your home computer then getting a handout of an article at school. The "Paleoindian" article also did a good job of grouping everything together and giving you different theories and views to look at, so you could create your own opinion. The "Buffaloed" article lacked grouping and only gave you one theory and hammered that idea into your head over and over again.For these reasons the on-line article is more accessible to high schoolers, who want to get an overall basic idea of a subject.

    ReplyDelete
  32. This article is more accessible than "Buffaloed". It is much shorter, and kept my attention far longer than the "Buffaloed" reading. The graphics help to keep your attention on the page, and you are not bored by the same information stated over and over again page after page after page. The length of this reading compared to the "Buffaloed" also makes it much easier to read.

    ReplyDelete
  33. This article is more accessible han "Buffaloed" was. In this article, Kreech groups his ideas into common catigories. In the "Buffaloed" reading, he brought up ideas and dropped them many times in the article.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I think this online article is more accessible to high school students. I felt it was clearer than the "Buffaloed" article's explanations and facts. Plus the online article had pictures, which keep me interested and helped me make connections to the topic. The online article didn't go into as much depth as the "Buffaloed" article, but still explained different theories well. I thought it was eaiser to understand than the hardcopy version we read, while still giving us a clear view on the topic.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I like this article better that "Buffaloed." The information was easier to understand for high school students and the information is much easier to understand. I liked all the pictures that the article showed and I liked that it was shorter than "Buffaloed."

    ReplyDelete
  36. I think that they are almost the same, the "Buffaloed" reading was longer and had bigger more complex vocab in it, but the other one was shorter and didnt have as tough as reading. Therefore the "Buffaloed" reading was more intense then the other, so the other might be a little easier

    ReplyDelete
  37. This article i think is easier to read then "Buffaloed" because it is a lot shorter, keeping my attention through out the whole article. I like how Kreech organized his points while in "buffaloed" I though it seemed to jump around a lot more.Kreech's article was online making it easier for high school students or anyone for that matter to access and read at any time.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I thought that this was much easier to read than buffaloed. It was more interesting and it didn't have krech bashing you with the same evidence over and over again. It would be a much better source to learn from in a class room i think.

    ReplyDelete
  39. This article is def. more accessible to high school students. Its easier to read an article on my laptop than to fumble with an akward handout. I favored kretch's article way more than the Buffaloed article. The pictures and color helped keep attention and the shorter length made it feel more like reading rather than a task. The Buffaloed article also got redundant at parts and hella boring.

    ReplyDelete
  40. same about that dumb work thing with this one too -.-


    Personally this article was way more interesting than the buffalo one. It may not have had as much evidence, but for high school students whose hardest job is to keep focused this was better. It wasn't as slow and boring, and it had pictures to look at; which actually help a lot. For me at least. It was clear and striaght to the point without the dragging on and repeating.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I think the article started out well and caught my attention to keep reading. On a reading level i think it wasn't the t difficult to read, it was very clear about the points he wanted the reader to get. I also liked how it had pictures which kept my attention.

    ReplyDelete
  42. This article is a lot more accessible article than buffaloed,Buffaloed with its constant evidence made a point that stuck but other than that it didn't maintain that interesting effect throughout.This new reading with its graphics and images has sparked new interest in what I'm reading, it has made it look and feel interesting.

    ReplyDelete

Questions? Comments? Bueller? Bueller?