ENG 410C Quest Day #3

 

Please work with a partner you’ve never worked with before.

In experimenting with playful rhetoric we’re going to play an internet version of 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon.

6 degrees of Kevin Bacon is traditionally played by naming an actor, and connecting Actor A to Kevin Bacon in less than 6 ‘moves’ – drawing connections between actors in shared movies. For example if I say Ryan Reynolds.

Ryan Reynolds was in “The Proposal” with Sandra Bullock (Move 1)

Sandra Bullock was in “Gravity” with Ed Harris (Move 2)

Ed Harris was in “Apollo 13” with Kevin Bacon (woooo Move 3)

 

Quest #1 Play 6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon Wikipedia

Using Wikepedia hyperlinks, connect “Play” (the page) to “Rhetoric” (the page).

Write down each move you make, why you chose to make that move.

Write down each move you explore as a possibility and why you chose to explore that possibility.

 

Quest #2 Make your own 6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon Wikipedia

Step One: Create your own 6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon Wikipedia game – select your own beginning page and end page. Please don’t use actors, everything else is fair game.

 

Step Two: trade with a partner group

 

Step Three: Play their game

Write down each move you make, why you chose to make that move.

Write down each move you explore as a possibility and why you chose to explore that possibility.

 

Step Four: Report your moves to the original group.

 

 

 

Quest #3: Reflection

Post all your Quest #1 moves to your blog.

Post all your Quest #1 possible moves to your blog.

  1. In what way do your decisions reflect ‘traditional academic thinking’? (approximately 300 words)
  2. In what way do your decisions playfully critique ‘traditional academic thinking’? Use Holmevik in your response (approximately 300 words)
  3. In what ways did Peer Game Design reflect ‘traditional academic thinking’? In what ways did your approach reflect ‘traditional academic thinking’? (approximately 300 words)
  4. In what ways did Peer Game Design playfully critique ‘traditional academic thinking’? In what ways did your approach playfully critique ‘traditional academic thinking’? Use Holmevik in your response (approximately 300 words)
Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s