Critically Evaluate article-Alfred Binet - Assignment Example

March 22, Siegler’s “The Other Alfred Binet:” An Appreciation of Binet’s Multiple Contributions In reference to the renowned Binet-Simon intelligence scale, Robert S. Siegler asserts that Alfred Binet’s less known works in psychology deserve equal recognition and further studies too. In “The Other Alfred Binet,” Siegler reviews Binet’s primary contributions to psychology, explores why his intelligence scale was more prominent than other works, and understands the place of his contributions in determining early cognitive development’s processes and unifying theories about cognition and cognitive development.

Siegler argues that Binet made outstanding contributions to understanding intelligence, development, and memory, but his reserved personality, coupled with lack of formal psychology training, mentors, protégés, and alignment with the intellectual developments of his time made the latter contributions not as widely promoted and studied as his intelligence scale. Siegler supports his arguments well with secondary research and analysis, but his insights suffer from lack of discussion of data-collection methodology and possible insufficiency of sources.

Siegler asserts that Binet conducted important studies that improved our understanding of intelligence, development, and memory. He underlines that Binet conceptualizes intelligence as a complex construct that cannot be easily measured. Binet shows that intelligence is malleable and develops at different rates within and across groups across their lifespan, and that social factors influence cognitive development. Siegler further explains Binet’s findings and insights from his studies on children.

Some of these are the views that cognitive development is a constructive process where children assimilate new knowledge and experiences to their ways of thinking, intelligence affects both simple and complex thought processes and behaviors, and high levels of physical activity are essential to their development. Furthermore, through experimental studies, Binet learned that children learned better when they learned ideas together in one text than in isolation and that suggestibility affected their memory too.

Siegler believes that Binet’s other contributions did not gather the same attention and attain equal prominence as his Binet-Simon scale because the latter did not gain a formal education in psychology, his reserved personality, inability to attract graduate students who could have expanded his work, and intellectual trends of his time. He describes that the absence of formal education might have been the main factor of losing his chances for professorship and supportive senior mentors who could have promoted his works in their field.

In addition, Binet had a reticent personality that Siegler notes might have made him less marketable than other psychology teachers. Furthermore, lacking professorship and being not so amiable to others might have reduced his access to graduate students. These students could have been his protégés who would have advanced and tested his insights on cognition and development of intelligence. Lastly, Binet’s works are too advanced for his time and did not fit specific psychology sub-areas. These arguments are strong because they are based on secondary research and personal analysis of Binet’s personality, social systems, and works, they addressed the original research aims, and the conclusions are valid and justified because they are logical and evidence-based insights on Binet’s contributions to cognition and cognitive development.

Siegler made use of scholarly materials to determine Binet’s other works. He also analyzed the field of psychology during this time to draw logical conclusions about the contextual factors that may serve as reasons on why Binet’s many works did not achieve adequate support from his colleagues and graduate psychology students. Furthermore, Siegler addressed all his aims because he gave a short biography of Binet, described his works and other contributions to psychology, and explored how these ideas could be expanded in future development and cognition studies.

Moreover, Siegler’s conclusions valid and justified because they are reasonable and evidence-based insights on Binet’s contributions to cognition and cognitive development. He studied Binet’s works in relation to other psychologists’ works during his time and decades after him. Siegler showed the possibilities of Binet’s ideas and how they can advance current studies on children’s learning and cognitive research. The weaknesses of these findings are potential insufficiency of accessed works, problems with impressionistic analysis, and the absence of discussion of data-collection methods.

Siegler may have missed other works and insights that could have further captured the diversity of Binet’s findings and ideas. He also made impressions himself and did not test his ideas on cognition and cognitive development that came from Binet. Siegler also did not discuss his data-collection methods. This process could reveal what he could have missed. Other researchers cannot also replicate his study because he did not discuss this part of his qualitative study. I am surprised that Binet explored many areas in psychology that would be considered too advanced for his time, and that, though he made many impressionistic findings, he offered ideas that resonate with current empirical findings on cognition, learning, and human development.

His work on the qualitative nature of intelligence is based more on impressions than actual tests, but it proves that he never advocated that a single test can measure intelligence. His insights about the qualitative and complex nature of intelligence are also validated in recent studies. In addition, I am interested in his idea on the psychological mechanisms of “focus” on certain tasks, in order to aid learning for typical and atypical children and to understand early cognitive development.

I admire him for his hard work and creative and insightful analyses in his field. Binet truly inspires other psychologists to ask new and challenging questions about learning and cognitive development. Work CitedSiegler, Robert S. “The Other Alfred Binet.” Developmental Psychology 28.2 (1992): 179-190. Print.