330 Discussion

**NOTE: Please read the article  Google Ngram Viewer Possibilities Limitations before your initial post or reply post.  The question below regarding 'computer assisted reading' does NOT refer to reading on a computer monitor NOR does it refer to a computer assisted voice actually reading a book.  'Computer assisted reading' refers to the computer ACTUALLY DOING THE READING, THE THINKING, THE ANALYSIS that normally human beings would do, while reading a book or article.

In week 3, we used Google’s NGram viewer to launch a discussion about terminology in the course: business intelligence, data analytics, data science.   It also gave us the opportunity to introduce some data visualization into the course. 

In this week’s discussion, we’ll be returning to Google’s NGram, but from a different angle, from the angle of data collection and what is the impact of analyzing data using data analytics tools.  

As a starting point, we’ll read an article found under Content: “Google NGram Viewer: Opportunities and Limitations”.  Also available here:

Google Ngram Viewer Possibilities Limitations

One important learning point from this week’s discussion is to internalize that data is NOT just numbers, it’s also words (yes and counts of words, which are numbers).  But the meaning and evolving meaning of words are also data.

As for the topic or question(s) this week for the initial post group, we’ll keep it somewhat open-ended, but based on a few assertions and questions posed by the authors of the article.  First of all, from the very first sentence of the article, the authors announce their intention to provide “a basic introduction into the possibilities of computer-assisted reading.”

Computer-assisted reading?  Is that what we’re doing, reading, assisted by a computer?

By the end of the article, they make another assertion: “Digital methods can allow us to make observations about vast numbers of texts. Far more than you would be able to read yourself.”   Further they state, “That last phrase should cause some alarm: we haven't actually read any of these texts, but we are making observations about them nonetheless. We hope you will think deeply about the implications about such an act.”

Broadly, for the initial post group, there are three options for your initial post.   As in other weeks, initial posts should be a minimum of 250 words.  If one of the options below don't 'inspire' you to write 250 words, then choose a different option OR choose to respond to more than one option in your initial post.

OPTION 1: And now three questions, again from the authors (if you choose to address these questions, please take them in a group, if you address the question of what this form of reading ‘loses’, please also try to brainstorm on what this form of reading ‘gains’ AND how we might maximize gains and minimize what is lost):

· What does this form of reading lose?

· What does it gain?

· How it can it be approached in ways that minimize the former and maximize the latter?

OPTION 2: Of course, we might begin with the question above (if you choose to address this question, you must, at some point, address, with external research, what it means ‘to read’):

· Is that what we’re doing, reading, assisted by a computer?

OPTION 3: Finally, read the final section, the final paragraph on Interpretation.  I won’t quote the author’s directly here, but there are a few interesting assertions there, worthy of comments, questions and discussions.

For reply groups, please do not be satisfied simply to ‘react’ to the initial posts.  There’s a lot of interesting room for discussion here, in particular about the open-ended section on Interpretation.  If the initial post concentrates on one phrase in that section, but actually you were more struck by a different passage, sentence or assertion, by all means, say so and elaborate.