An Interview with
Dr. Miraca Gross
by Ariel Baska
Originally published
in the fall 2003 issue of Systems, the newsletter of the Center for
Gifted Education of The College of William and Mary.
Dr. Miraca Gross,
director of the Gifted Education Research, Resource and
According to Dr.
Gross, mental age is by far the most important factor in grouping. “Mental age
affects the way they learn and socialize far more than chronological age. A child
who is nine with a mental age of twelve is not nine in the way that he understands
the world. There are different expectations and conceptions of friendship.
Twelve-year-old students with a mental age of nine naturally gravitate towards
students with a similar mental age. Water finds its own level, and so do
students,” Dr. Gross stated.
Once students are
grouped according to their intellectual capacity, she advocates a full-time
ability-grouped program for gifted students by content area. “There is a term
used in Australian educational policy – ‘the least restrictive environment.’
Putting children in the learning environment they would actually choose for themselves
is beneficial. An environment where the child is learning full-time with
similar children is the environment that least restricts him from fulfilling
his potential.”
Dr. Gross responds
to many of the arguments against ability grouping. One such argument is that
gifted students in ability-grouped classes suffer a decrease in self-esteem. Based
on her research, she has concluded that there is a momentary dip in the child’s
self-esteem, but it subsequently rises with continued interaction in the program.
She also cited the research of Delcourt et al. (1994) which concluded that students’
attitudes towards learning improved as they were more specifically grouped by ability.
According to the study, similarly gifted children in mixed-ability settings had
an inflated idea of their own ability, while those in full time ability
grouping settings were more realistic about their talents. She also refutes
reasoning which claims that top students should be left in mixed-ability
classes as models for less able students. “Students tend to model themselves on
individuals with similar ability levels who can master the tasks assigned.” Dr.
Gross also stresses that because students of high ability and students of
average ability understand and learn concepts in completely different ways, the
highly gifted often prove to be unsuccessful mentors.
Finally, Dr. Gross
highlighted the conflicting use of ability grouping in most schools. “In
performance areas, it is generally accepted that you put high performers
together,” she stated, citing the examples of music and sports. “Not one team
sent a mixed ability team to the Olympics.” She asserts that the educational community
needs to treat intellectual ability the same way that musical and athletic
ability are treated in our society – by placing the top students together to do
advanced work.
Dr. Gross is hopeful that her work will have positive effects,
but continues to emphasize the importance of the teacher’s role. “We need to
talk to teachers about these issues in a language they can understand. Explain the
research. That is the only way to effect a change in the system.” Dr. Gross’s
presentation provided a forum for members of the William and Mary community to
reflect upon the research behind ability grouping as a strategy to meet the
needs of gifted learners.
Delcourt, M. A. B.,
Loyd, B. H., Cornell, D. G., & Goldberg, M. D. (1994). Evaluation of the effects of programming arrangements on student
learning outcomes. Research
Monograph 94108.
Gross, M. (2004). Exceptionally gifted children,
2nd ed.