Ben Stokes (MacArthur): It’s about “learning” (not “education”). Games are partly about learning, but they’re about a system of learning that we’re trying to understand.

Jessica Goldfin (Knight): Lead journalism into the 21th century. Good journalism is about democracy. See Knight challenge.

Arlene de Strulle (NSF): Cyber-learning initiative based on large investment in nation’s cyber-infrastructure. We need new ways of understanding the new learner — decentralized learning, anytime anywhere. We don’t know the cognitive implications of cyber-learning. Understanding science crucial to participating in cultural change.

Brad (Corporation for National & Community Service): Change — engaging citizens as problem-solvers.

Picking up Eric’s question from the last panel challenging assessment/evidence — What questions do we still need to answer?

Ben — evidence is central. “Does this really work?” We need to be creative. But this doesn’t mean we need a “killer app.” Compare documentary films’ effect. If we have exemplars of a number of different games, showing different kinds of learning, we can show diversity of gameplay, of outcomes. MacArthur trying to tell the story of games that do interesting things. Jim Gee now coming up with new models for assessment. With participation as key, outcomes from learning are overlapping with outcomes from civic engagement. Right now: $50M over 5 years, or $10M/year. Tended to fund games exceeding the garage capacity, $100K+. When funding a game, it’s for design research.

Jessica — We don’t know what we don’t know. It’s a great opportunity to figure out a middle ground.

Arlene — NSF requires stringent formative evaluation. What’s particularly transformative about this particular genre of learning?

Brad — $3.5M last year, maybe multiples next year.