AUTHOR
Janusz Wielki

ABSTRACT

Despite the Internet being a relatively new phenomenon, in the case of its business dimension and the impact it has had on the functioning of contemporary organizations, it is the subject of dynamic and permanent change. The first phase of its development was a period when all types of organizations started including it in their business strategies and in a growing number of process connected with achieving their business aims. Because of this, it was a time when many companies established web sites, to varying degrees of sophistication and when they sought internet technology- based tools to help them redesign their business processes connected with customer service and cooperation with business partners. Companies started to fully take into consideration the opportunities relating to the development of the electronic space as a platform for conducting business activities.

This first phase stared in 1995 and ended in 2001, with the bursting of the dot-com bubble as a result of excessive and unrealistic expectations of the capabilities of the Internet and its impact on the economy. But the withdrawal of organizations from the Internet, which was shown, among other issues, by the drop in spending on on-line promotion, was in fact only temporary. This was due to the fact that in the short period of time since its inception, it had become too important a platform for conducting business activities, to be dropped. Quite simply, contemporary, networked organizations, found they were not able to function without it.

The years following have been a time of even more dynamic development and further utilization of the Internet by all types of organizations. The year 2001 became a key date in the separating of the phases of its evolution, because it marks the development of Web 1.0 into Web 2.0.

As was mentioned earlier, the second phase of the Internet’s development started after the collapse of the dot-com bubble and with the first decade of the new millennium. At that time the Internet, and particularly its multimedial part, the Web, gradually started to differ significantly from the first phase. It is connected with the development of technologies often called Web 2.0 technologies and the rapidly growing involvement and creativity of the users utilizing them. Hence participation has become its most important feature, and O’Reilly, who in 2005 introduced the term “Web 2.0”, has called it the “architecture of participation”. Beside participation, its other main characteristic elements are collectivism, virtual communities and amateurism.

The basic elements and components of Web 2.0 include:

• new generation search engines (e.g. Google),
• Wikis (e.g. Wikipedia),
• peer-to-peer,
• mash-ups,
• Web services,
• blogs,
• podcasts,
• videocasts,
• RSS,
• virtual worlds (e.g. SecondLife),
• social networking Websites.

Undoubtedly social networking Websites are one of the most dynamically growing and key components of Web 2.0 and this paper is focused on implications connected with their development.

The paper is composed of four parts. In the first part an overview of the situation connected with the phases of the Internet development is briefly provided.

The next part is focused on Web 2.0 as the second phase of the Internet’s development. It has been briefly characterized and its basic components has been presented.

The following two parts form the core of this paper. First, the social networking Websites has been characterized and then their typology is presented. Next, opportunities connected with their utilization are provided. They include three areas of organizations’ activities:

• marketing,
• human resources management,
• knowledge management.

Next, challenges connected with social networking Websites development are presented and discussed. They include the following issues:

• the risk of decreasing employee productivity,
• dangers relating to company security,
• the challenges connected with the proper and efficient functioning of an organization’s IT infrastructure,
• dangers of accidental leakage of data or information,
• the possibilities for the conscious or unconscious negative impact on the image of a specific organization.

  In all cases special attention is concentrated on social and ethical challenges and implications connected with social networking Websites development and their impact on functioning of contemporary organizations. All these issues are supported by numerous examples from various sectors. In the case of both opportunities and challenges, the impact of social networking Websites on organizational dynamics and culture is analyzed as well. It is made taking into consideration the main characteristics of the Web 2.0 i.e. participation, collectivism, virtual communities and amateurism.

  In the final part of the paper, the most significant conclusions and suggestions are offered.

  REFERENCES

  Bughin J., Manyika J., Miller A., Building the Web 2.0 Enterprise: McKinsey Global Survey Results, “The McKinsey Quarterly”, July 2008

  Carr N., The amorality of Web 2.0, http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2005/10/the_amorality_o.php, October 03, 2005

  Chui M., Miller A., Roberts R., Six ways to make Web 2.0 work, “The McKinsey Quarterly”, February 2009

  Cone, Cone Finds That Americans Expect Companies to Have a Presence in Social Media, http://www.coneinc.com/content1182/, 2008

  Dobrow L, What is Social Media’s Impact on CRM?, “1to1 Weekly”, http://www.1to1media.com/PrintView.aspx?DocID=31454, March 9, 2009

  eMarketer, Retailers Get Social with Facebook, http://www.emarketer.com/ Articles/Print.aspx?id=1006674, October 29, 2008

  eMarketer, Focused Social Networks Build Community, http://www.emarketer.com/ Articles/Print.aspx?id=1006836, December 29, 2008

  Havenstein H., Customer Service 2.0: Clients become brand managers, “Computerworld”, http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9090398, May 28, 2008

  Holahan C., Facebook: Marketers Are Your ‘Friends’, “BusinessWeek”, http://www.businessweek.com/print/technology/content/nov2007/tc2007116_289111.htm, November 7, 2007

  Keen A., Kult amatora, Warszawa, Wydawnictwa Akademickie i Profesjonalne, 2007

  Lenhart A., Adults and social network websites, “Pew Internet & American Life Project”, http://pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Adult_social_networking_data_memo_ FINAL.pdf, January 14, 2009

  O’Reilly T., What Is Web 2.0, http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6228, September 30, 2005

  Scott M., A Web 2.0 Dashboard for Buzz, “BusinessWeek”, http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jan2008/gb20080115_925667.htm, January 15, 2008

  Shuen A.: Web 2.0. Przewodnik po strategiach. Gliwice: Hellion, 2009

AUTHOR
Misse Wester and Per Sandin

ABSTRACT

This contribution presents the results from a survey study conducted in Sweden. In total, 2010 answers were collected from a representative sample of the Swedish population. The increased usage of novel technical solutions that may require individuals to provide sensitive information about themselves, such as an increase of so called e-services, can be promoted for two reasons. First, an increase of security is often used as one reason for collecting and storing e.g. biometric data such as fingerprints or retina scans. Second, the benefit for the individual in terms of convenience and availability is yet another reason for an increased reliance on technical solutions. But the trade-off between security for all and privacy for the individual is a difficult one to make. Also, the perceived demand of increased e-services is questionable, both because this is not fully investigate and also because there are few options if an individual chooses not to use e-services.

The study focuses of how the concept of privacy is perceived by the public and how this perception relates to different applications of information and communication technology. One of the aims of this study has been to identify to what extent different groups of the public view the balance between the individual’s right to privacy with the increased security some ICT solutions are claimed to provide society at large. We also measured what knowledge individual hold about these technologies and to what extent they have chosen to use or not to use novel ICTs.

The data was analyzed with respect to various background factors such as age, place of residence, having children, gender and education. Most individuals use items that could be used for storing information about them or tracking their whereabouts to a great extent. Most use the Internet on a daily basis, their mobile phones or use public transportation. A majority of respondents have taken steps to protect data about themselves. These actions included refusing to give personal data about oneself to a company or asking to be removed from a database that a third party could be privy to. It can be noted that there actions were directed mostly towards commercial companies and not governmental agencies. This raises the question of reasonable options for the user. Giving up the option of receiving tailor-made offers from my local grocery story by not registering my purchases in the stores bonus program is quite different from not receiving my unemployment reimbursement for refusing to give personal data over the Internet. Governmental agencies are perceived as more trustworthy than commercial companies, but in order to retain this high level of confidence it is argued that reasonable options must be available.

The results further indicate that men and women differ in how they perceive potentially invasive information and communication technologies. Men are more skeptical towards the implementation of certain technologies and feel that these technologies can be easily misused by third parties. Men also believe that the laws that regulate the uses of private information are less efficient than women judge these laws to be. However, men utilize e-services to a greater extent than women do. Also, younger individuals use these services to a greater extent than the older individuals. This latter groups is also more concerned that their information is available only to authorized personnel at both governmental agencies as well as commercial actors.

These results indicate that there are different groups in society with different preferences and concerns when it comes to protecting their personal and potentially privacy sensitive data. This calls for a more nuanced discussion where the need and desire for new technologies is given priority rather than allowing the technical development influence this process. If the end-users are not involved in this process, and if the technical possibilities are not presented as just that – possibilities – chances are that the increased reliance on ICT solutions will increase concerns of privacy. Also, the development of reasonable options for those individuals that do not want to utilize novel technical solutions must be taken seriously or the term “informed consent” will become meaningless.

AUTHOR
Timothy Walsh

ABSTRACT

Few would deny that the development of modern information and communication technologies has substantially increased the ability of individuals to collect, access, share, store, disseminate, and organize information. At the same time, some argue that this wealth of information is of little real value, having anywhere from no effect to a pernicious effect on our ability to make meaningful choices and construct meaningful lives. A human cannot flourish without a coherent sense of self, but some say that this is exactly what ICTs, at least as they have been developing, tend to undermine.

Shaping one’s life story into a coherent, integrated whole requires a kind of practical wisdom. Drawing on Martha Nussbaum’s insightful interpretation of Aristotelian rationality, I conceive of this kind of practical wisdom as a virtue that applies not only to making discreet choices between various potential actions, but also to shaping the ongoing reinterpretations, assignments of meaning, and visions of one’s future self that mold our evolving characters and self-narratives. Practical wisdom, as understood here, is intimately connected to a type of “seeing” that allows us to grasp the unique qualities of the objects of our perception, some of which may only be visible from our own individual perspectives. Furthermore, the exercise of practical wisdom involves a meaning-based deliberative process that leverages the entirety of one’s self—including both the faculties often considered rational and those often considered emotional or non-rational—to effectively, but not necessarily perfectly, evaluate incommensurable goods. A rigorous defense of this view of rationality and practical wisdom is beyond the scope of this paper. However, given the difficulty encountered by attempts to subsume human judgment under a consistent and complete set of general rules, it seems reasonable to consider alternative conceptions of judgment and rational choice.

Flourishing as a human has always required the exercise of practical wisdom, but it is perhaps true that the pursuit of excellence in practical wisdom is of greater significance today for developing a coherent identity than in the past. It seems that modern life, partially through the influence of ICTs, has eroded the authority of certain traditions and worldviews that could “substitute” for the true exercise of practical wisdom, at least for some.

I intend to argue that the evolution of ICTs, particularly as it is reflected in the growth and development of the Internet, will foster individuals’ capacities for developing and exercising practical wisdom. In particular, the present paper will focus on the positive effects of participation in the evolving culture of the Internet on the acuity of perception that I contend is crucial for exercising practical wisdom. This claim should not be misconstrued as stating that everyone who uses the Internet will undoubtedly excel in practical wisdom. My argument is far more modest: I suggest that the ideas, values, meanings, and purposes that propel the evolution of the Internet and become enshrined in its culture are also conducive to developing the kind of perceptual excellence needed for the exercise of practical wisdom.

The first part of my argument will be a defense of the conceptual claim that the Internet constitutes a new kind of cultural space that affords us additional perspectives on ourselves and on our local or regional cultures. This description is not intended to be a complete or exhaustive claim about the ontology of the Internet; rather, it is an interpretation of one possible “function” of the Internet. The “architecture” of the Internet, built from ideas such as massive parallel processing and free exchange, as well as the evolution of the Internet into an ever more interactive and individual-empowering element of culture, encourages people to freely share what they are passionate about, making it an unmatched and unprecedented space for exploring the unique qualities of these passions. The nature of the Internet not only encourages the expression of various passions, it also tends to prompt users to examine the meaning and value of these pursuits from new angles. For example, the interconnected nature of the Internet combined with its quasi-global scope makes it more likely that people sharing a particular passion will find others who share this same passion, but may come from very different backgrounds. These people might have very different conceptions of the nature of the shared passion, and interaction with such people will almost certainly enrich one’s own perceptions.

The second part of the paper will focus on the increasing use of the Internet for the exchange of narrative content, as evidenced in the proliferation of social networking sites and sites such as Second Life. I do not intend to argue that the content generated by users of these sites is necessarily profound and enriching for outside observers, or even for participants. Rather, my contention is that the active participation in storytelling expected of those who use these sites can compel users to “see” aspects of themselves that they might not have been aware of in the past, sharpening and enriching their self-perceptions.

I will conclude by briefly outlining how these sharpened perceptions might contribute to excellence in practical wisdom, and by suggesting some avenues of research that may lead to a better understanding of the influence of ICTs on the nature and practice of human judgment.

REFERENCES

Nussbaum, M. (1990). Love’s Knowledge: Essays on Philosophy and Literature. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Postman, N. (1990) Informing Ourselves to Death. Retrieved October 4, 2009, from http://www.mat.upm.es/~jcm/postman-informing.html.

Volkman, R. (2005) Dynamic Traditions: Why globalization does not mean homogenization. Retrieved October 4, 2009, from http://bibliotecavirtual.clacso.org.ar/ar/libros/raec/ethicomp5/docs/htm_papers/68Volkman,%20Richard.htm.

AUTHOR
Matthew Croft Wake and Bernd Carsten Stahl

ABSTRACT

Second Life is a Massively Multiplayer Online Game (MMOG) which offers users almost complete autonomy in the virtual world, from operating virtual businesses (S. Hutchinson, 2006), and operating virtual presences of real-world businesses, to building homes, even virtual intimate liaisons. The ability to buy land, build structures and objects, and give them scripted functionality, coupled with the free access afforded to users who do not wish to purchase land or items in-world, has made Second Life highly attractive for educational establishments to create virtual classrooms and learning spaces.

However, Second Life, as with all MMOG’s, has had a fair share of incidents involving both users of the system in ‘griefing’ attacks(S. Hutchinson, 2006), and hackers attempting to subvert the system (‘R. Linden’, 2006). The use of virtual money which has a real-world value if traded out makes Second Life a highly attractive target for hackers, and the very flexibility which makes the platform so attractive also allows new avenues of abuse or attack, from allegations of virtual sexual assault perpetrated by in-game users, to theft of intellectual property using hacked client software (‘C. Linden’, 2006).

In our proposed paper we will categorise ethical issues arising from the use of Second Life as a platform in education. While there is a literature that investigates ethical issues of ICT in higher education in general (Jeffries, Stahl & McRobb, 2007; McRobb & Stahl, 2007; Stahl, 2005; Stahl, 2004), as far as we know, such ideas and questions have not yet been applied to a particular application such as Second Life. We will therefore start with a description of the Second Life environment which will concentrate on the security and user protection features it provides. This will then lead to a review of social and educational consequences that can arise from SL use.

A problem with outsourcing any IT system, especially so with one as broad as Second Life, is that it can become difficult to administer user access. How do we know that a user of Second Life is a particular student at our university? How do we know that the student’s account has not been compromised? And can we request removal of an account on a platform we do not own, if that user has breached our terms and conditions, but not those of the service provider?

Linden Labs, the creators and maintainers of Second Life, state that they are a service provider, and do not actively police any occurrence which does not directly conflict with their terms of use. As such, an individual university must monitor and deal with any incidents which fall outside of Linden Labs’ jurisdiction. Do they keep sufficient logging information to be able to prove or disprove that a particular infraction even occurred?

We suggest that categorising the ethical issues arising from the use of Second Life can be classed as follows:

• Security
• Abuse / misuse
• Technical constraints
• Pedagogy
• Intellectual Property
• Legal liability

For each of these issues we will provide a discussion of the particular issues as they arise and contrast them with other more established environments such as virtual learning environments.

The paper will conclude with a list of items to be considered by decision makers considering the use of Second Life in higher education if they want to avoid creating foreseeable ethical problems.

REFERENCES

Jeffries, Pat; Stahl, Bernd Carsten & McRobb, Steve (2007): “Exploring the Relationships between Pedagogy, Ethics & Technology: Building a Framework for Strategy Development” In: Technology, Pedagogy and Education (16:1), 111 – 126

McRobb, Steve & Stahl, Bernd Carsten (2007): “Privacy as a Shared Feature of the e-Phenomenon: A Comparison of Privacy Policies in e-Government, e-Commerce and e-Teaching” International Journal of Information Technology and Management, Special Issue on “Making Sense of the E-Phenomenon”, edited by Feng Li, 232 – 249

Stahl, Bernd Carsten (2005): “E-voting: an Example of Collaborative E-teaching and E-learning” In: Journal of Interactive Technology & Smart Education (2:1), 19-30

Stahl, Bernd Carsten (2004): “E-Teaching – the Economic Threat to the Ethical Legitimacy of Education?” In: Journal of Information Systems Education (15:2), 155 – 162

Hutchinson, S. (2006). Virtual property queen says thanks a million.
Available: http://www.smh.com.au/news/biztech/virtual-property-queen-reaps-the-rewards/2006/11/27/1164476080388.html.
Last accessed 24 July 2009.

Hutchinson, S. (2006). Second Life miscreants stage members-only attack.
Available: http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/good-grief-bad-vibes/2006/12/21/1166290662836.html
Last accessed 24 July 2009.

Linden, R.. (2006). Urgent Security Announcement.
Available: https://blogs.secondlife.com/community/features/blog/2006/09/08/urgent-security-announcement
Last accessed 24 July 2009.

AUTHOR
Richard Volkman

ABSTRACT

The theme of Ethicomp 2010 is inspired by Alvin Toffler, who writes, “change is non-linear and can go backwards, forwards and sideways.” To some ears, this may sound like a shocking admission from a well-known futurist and techno-enthusiast; it may seem that admitting the inevitability of set backs and missteps along the way is a retreat from the “practical optimism” expressed so often by Toffler and his ilk, an optimism summed up neatly in the title of a Wired montage, “Change is Good.” However, a closer look reveals that proponents of our wired futures have always acknowledged that the path of progress is bumpy and difficult, even as our movement forward is inexorable. To critics, the view of inevitable progress has seemed Panglossian and even dangerous. They have worried on the one hand that futurists and enthusiasts makes predictions that cannot be justified reveals that proponents of our wired futures have always acknowledged that the path of progress is bumpy and difficult, even as our movement forward is inexorable. To critics, the view of inevitable progress has seemed Panglossian and even dangerous. They have worried on the one hand that futurists and enthusiasts makes predictions that cannot be justified (e.g., Norton, 2004), and on the other hand they accuse the proponents of technological progress of a crude “technological determinism” which is understood on the model of the vulgar Marxism wherein all culture is but an epiphenomena dancing atop the deeper material reality (e.g., Winner, 2002). But the defense of progress is in fact much more nuanced and compelling than many critics have imagined.

As I will show, there is excellent reason to believe that on balance change is good, and we are on a path of inexorable progress, even as it is admitted that there pitfalls and distractions along the way. The argument in no way supposes or implies discovery of a deep dialectic of History, or the ability to see the future in any way that transcends the epistemic limits of good science Indeed, the defense of progress is substantially drawn from the understanding of scientific progress advanced by Karl Popper, especially in The Open Society. In short, an understanding of the selection process that governs cultural evolution as an algorithm for the discovery of clever solutions to the problems we face reveals that there is excellent reason to believe we will find the best solutions to our problems, whatever those problems are. That is progress.

The analysis draws heavily on work in biological evolution, especially in defining the selection algorithm that moves evolution as an optimizing procedure that searches nearby “design space” to discover peaks in a “fitness landscape,” occasioning an equilibrium that offorestalls further change unless and until some environmental variable is altered, such that the fitness landscape itself is altered, prompting anew the search for new peaks. The analogy with cultural evolution is deep, but invites significant misconceptions. To be clear: the view that the same algorithmic processes govern cultural evolution and biological evolution is NOT any version of so-called “Social Darwinism.” The most important difference between biological and cultural evolution involves the significance of feedback between the environment and the results of difference between biological and cultural evolution. Since the environment helps to define the selection pressures and even the fitness landscape that defines solutions, this is a huge difference between the two processes, even if they are implementations of one and the same algorithm. To sum up the point: In biological evolution, the environment changes arbitrarily, so being “fit” has no legitimate normative sense for us; in cultural evolution, the environment itself is defined largely by our choices, which just are our variously expressed judgments of value, and “fitness” means fitness to these revealed values, so the normative dimension of the process is not at all out of place (although it can be easily misplaced, as the analysis will explore).

While this analysis in no way permits us to peek around the corner of the unfolding of history to predict exactly what shall be, and it is by no means a deductive proof or guarantee of progress, and especially not along any particular timetable, the argument provides sufficient warrant for the expectation that our future will be better than our past, in a sense of better that is itself better than our present conception of what counts as better. So, while the defense of progress does not specify what exactly will count as progress, nonetheless there is good reason to believe that, given the circumstances that set up the right selection algorithm to govern cultural evolution, the results of the process will be an improvement over our present circumstance, without supposing we already know in advance what an improvement would be. This is just one more dimension of progress to be discovered by the algorithm itself. To cite a famous maxim in biology: “Orgel’s Second Rule: Evolution is cleverer than you are.” (Dennett, 1995)

Since the defense of progress is too abstract and procedural to permit the particular predictions favored by futurists and other readers of tea leaves, it speaks against any policy analysis that supposes we already know what the process has yet to reveal. At the same time, the defense of progress reveals the sorts of policies that are crucial to the well-functioning of the process that warrants our expectations of progress. While the institutions of the open society warrant an expectation of progress, it is not automatic or inevitable that these institutions will be maintained, let alone that they will be maintained in a way that best facilitates progress, especially in the face of technophobia, xenophobia, or the resistance of vested interests. The future is for the better, but it still has its enemies. Proponents of the future need an awareness of the sources and limits of the defense of progress if they are to advance their projects.

REFERENCES

Dennett, D. (1995) Darwin’s dangerous idea. New York: Touchstone.

Horner, D. (2004) Nanoethics: Fact, fiction, and forecasting. Ethicomp 2004.

Popper, K. (1945). The open society and its enemies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Winner, L. (2002) Are Humans Obsolete? The Hedgehog Review. 4(3): 25-44.

AUTHOR
Eva Turner

ABSTRACT

This paper investigates the use of report writing software introduced specifically to help teachers of Key Stage 1 (KS1 – 5 to7 years old pupils) to write computerised end of year school reports to parents. The paper will analyse the ways in which teachers adapt to using such software, and their opinions as to whether the software enables them to accurately describe each child’s achievements. The paper will also analyse the government’s and school inspectors’ attitudes to end of year report writing to parents and the parents’ reactions to such computerised reports.

There are a large number of report writing packages, most of which appear to have been developed in the last five to seven years. However the idea of statement banks is older and longer in existence. With the developments of in-house school systems some schools developed their own statement banks (Noonan 2007), but many have accepted government recommended free software (Mackay 2009).

It is a statutory requirement of UK schools to provide parents at least once a year with a written report covering each pupil’s achievements related to the national curriculum. These reports have to contain

• progress in all the national curriculum subjects they have studied;
• progress in other subjects and activities;
• general progress and attendance; and
• results in any national curriculum tests or assessments.

The report should also tell parents when they can discuss it with the school. This discussion usually takes place at a parents’ evening….. (UK Government Legal Advice Site 2008)

In relation to the above legal requirements, most computerised report writing packages used for KS1 reports assume that parents need to be informed about each individual subject (as taught in higher levels of schooling) :

• English
• Maths
• Science
• Design and technology
• Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
• History
• Geography
• Art and Design
• Music
• Physical education

Thus the report blueprints are arranged in paragraphs headed by each of the above subjects. However for 5-7 year old children the emphasis is on developing literacy and maths skills (Directgov 2005), the delivery of which is tightly controlled and streamlined. The way in which the other subjects, called Foundation Subjects, are delivered is left to individual schools as long as the curriculum is followed (BBC 2009).

Based on interviews with primary school teachers, school inspectors and Local Educational Authorities (LEA) advisors, parents and the technology developers the paper follows the way in which these users shaped, developed and used the software to write the most appropriate individual report for each KS1 child. The theories of Social Shaping of Technology (MacKenzie and Wajcman 1999) will be used to analyse this development. The seemingly technologically deterministic approach to this software adoption by some school heads and teachers and by government agencies is not supported by the experience of the teachers and the feedback from parents. The initial adoption was apparently aiming at shortening the time teachers take writing the reports and standardising them so that they become comparable in the way they report on individual children’s academic attainments. In the words of CS, a primary school teacher from an East London primary school:

”I felt confident about writing the reports [by hand] and had a system for doing lots of them. … but I got overtaken by the technology…”

It became clear during an interview with an East London LEA Foundation Years Advisor (pre KS1) and from the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency (QCDA 2008) website, that there is a need for communication between KS1 teachers and foundation teachers about the levels of attainment with which children enter into their first year of primary school. Both Advisors and the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DSCF) stress the importance of an educational dialogue between KS1 and foundation teachers to best utilise early years learning and of parental involvement in their children schooling. The emphasis of Early Years Education is on the following areas of personal development, on which the KS1 teachers build their teaching:

• Personal, social and emotional development
• Communication, language and literacy
• Problem solving, numeracy and reasoning
• Knowledge and understanding of the world
• Physical development
• Creative development

(QCDA 2008)

However, the report writing software statement banks available to KS1 teachers do not allow for comments on such a personal development of KS1 children. Many parents would prefer the broad extent of foundation reports to be maintained in the KS1 end of year reports. CS characterised it as follows:

Initially I took a very long time looking for phrases and matching them to children…. At the beginning the statements one after the other did not read well, the language was too bland and did not tell enough individually to parents about their children…”

The paper will attempt to establish whether this specialised software will in the future be developed and shaped according to the parents’ and KS1 teachers’ feedback and whether a sufficient autonomy will be given to KS1 teachers to personalise the software and increase the database of appropriate statements. The alternative will be a “fit for all” package.

REFERENCES

BBC, (2009), How is the Primary Curriculum taught in different schools?, http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/parents/work/curriculum_guide/primary_curriculum_differences.shtml – – accessed 10/8/09

Directgov, (2005), Parents – The National Curriculum for five to 11 year olds, http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Schoolslearninganddevelopment/ExamsTestsAndTheCurriculum/DG_4015959 – accessed 10/8/09

Drew Mackay, (2009), Evaluation Report Assist, http://www.schoolzone.co.uk/evaluations/evaluation.asp?evalID=5050 – accessed 12/8/09

MacKenzie, D. and Wajcman, J., (1999) The Social Shaping of Technology, Open University Press Buckingham, Philadelphia

Noonan, S., (2007), Progress Report, http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/teachers/issue48/secondary/features/Progressreport/ – accessed 12/8/09

Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency, (2008), Early Years Foundation Stage, http://www.qcda.gov.uk/13585.aspx – accessed 13/8/09

UK Government Legal Advice Site, (2008), What should I be told about my child and their progress? http://www.communitylegaladvice.org.uk/en/legalhelp/leaflet20_6.jsp – accessed 12/8/09