There is a certain conceit in believing that a contemporary perspective represents the highest point of development in a field. Present-day views of development have their origins in the historical and cultural contexts of earlier eras, and it is possible to trace the cyclical waxing and waning of developmental perspectives across the centuries priorto the present “scientific” era in the field. Throughout history, cultures have varied in the significance they place on age and the relationship between age and the stages of development. For example, the stages that contemporary Western societies take for granted, such as infancy, childhood, and adolescence have changed their meaning and significance considerably over the centuries (Aries, 1962).

Recent developments in Cognitive Psychology and in the new discipline of Cognitive Science (an integration of Cognitive Psychology, Computer Science, Linguistics, Philosophy of Mind, and Cognitive Neuroscience) have made it appropriate to consider new ways in which Cognitive Development and Educational Psychology can benefit each other. Cognitive Development can contribute to Educational Psychology by specifying cognitive processes entailed in educationally relevant tasks, by analysing processing loads, and by indicating more efficient ways of using available capacity. Cognitive Psychology and Cognitive Science have now produced some penetrating theories of the cognitive processes that underlie a wide variety of intellectual activities. Although there is still much work remaining to be done, these developments can be used to analyse the strategies children and adults use in solving problems in areas such as mathematics and science. This can result in benefits in both learning and remediation. Educational Psychology can benefit Cognitive Development by offering alternativeconcepts, by providing realistic problems for analysis, and by providing a testing ground for its theories. I will illustrate these ideas in the area of mathematics.

This paper is not intended to be a deeply meaningful philosophical analysis of theory development nor a detailed historical account of the period involved. It is a personal view as seen by a practitioner and researcher during a period of several decades (1950s-1990). From this perspective, the period divides itself nicely into three distinct stages. Firstly, between the mid 1950s and the early 1970% practitioners were trying to describe Piaget's insights in classroom terms (Collis, 1969,1971; Peel, 1960,1971). This period was followed by attempts to explain the Piagetian stage phenomena most often in terms associated with information processing concepts (Case, 1972; Pascual-Leone, 1970). This latter work continued through the 1970s and in to the 1980s and sparked off a period that saw the efforts of the critical reviewers of Piagetian concepts redoubled. These reviews led to more recent expositions which have Piagetian heritage but subscribe to only a few of the original constructs. As an educational practitioner during the whole of the time under consideration, the writer's observations are biased towards'that context.

A marked impression gained when one reviews the developmental literature with a view to decidina what knowledge might be relevant to education is the large number of single issue and unconnected theories and the apparently frequent overturning of theories. At least every ten years we witness a major change in the basic theories guiding research and development in both developmental and educational psychology.

Witnessing this heavy turn-over from a sideline, one might be excused for feeling concerned that the fabric of psychological knowledge may not be able to withstand the hard wear and tear resulting from this continuous reworking and recycling, and that the psychological fabric will become more and more fragile. Some threadbare parts have become obvious already. For example, the terms cognitionand cognitive are of quite limited usefulness now because their meaning has been reduced to something internal, something that is not directly observable. Initially the concept of cognition had a general but clear meaning. Concepts such as schema, stage, behaviour, and action are beginning to suffer a similar fate.

Behavioural approaches to instructional consultation, problem-solving and teaching children have their base in operant psychology. In their modern forms they appear variously under labels such as Applied Behaviour Analysis (Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer, 1986), Direct Instruction (Englemann & Carnine, 1982) and Precision Teaching (Haring, Lovitt, Eaton & Hansen, 1978). They involve the systematic application of scientifically-based processes and procedures which produce learning to a sequence of chosen facts and concepts (‘knowing about’) and behaviours and skills (‘knowing how’). Three illustrative intervention studies which highlight some key characteristics of behavioural approaches to working with children are presented. These permit useful comparisons between a behavioural approach and some current ‘developmental’ and ‘educational’ orientations.

Teachers do not need to be either psychologists, sociologists, historians, political scientists or theologians. However, they do need an appropriate professional grounding if they are to be more than didatic technicians. The question of professional background is often solved by an uncoordinated smorgasbord where students are exposed to varying amounts from the basic disciplines of psychology, sociology, history and philosophy, taught independently of each other, without a clearly defined single focus.

Early childhood educators, as a concomitant of a long tradition of child-centred curricula, have found such a focus in the study of child development. If education can be seen as a deliberate effort to interact with that development in a way that leads to definable positive outcomes, this is a justified conceptualisation of the professional basis for a teacher's work. This is particularly the case in early childhood where development is rapid and varied in pace, and institutional settings vary so greatly. However, as teachers in higher grades are increasingly asked to be involved more widely in their students' lives, through ever greater curriculum demands, it becomes more pertinent there are well.

Ever since mass education became the norm, with children being required to attend group-teaching in literacy and numeracy, some children have experienced difficulty in coping with this type of instruction. Their reaction frequently manifests as a bored, unruly child who exertsa disruptiveclassroom influence. The issue of what to do with such children has been a persistent problem for their teachers.

“Education is generally accepted as having, as one of its major functions, the development of every child's potential to the fullest extent possible. It follows, therefore, that gifted children should have their gifts extended by their schools” (Senate Select Committee Report, 1988, p.173). The Committee considers that by encouraging the talents of the most able, Australia will strengthen its most valuable natural resource (its people) and will be in a better position to contribute economically, intellectually, and artistically at an international level.