The objectives of study were: (1) To study the effect of Synectics Model (SM), Gaming Strategy (GS) and Traditional Method (TM) of instruction respectively on the Self-concept of the learners. (2) To compare the effect of Synectics Model (SM) and Gaming Strategy (GS) on the Self-concept of the learners. (3) To compare the effect of Synectics Model (SM) and Traditional Method (TM) on the Self-concept of the learners. (4) To compare the effect of Gaming Strategy (GS) and Traditional Method (TM) on the Self-concept of the learners. (5) To compare the Self-concept score of learners, on pre and post test taught through Synectics Model (SM), Gaming Strategy (GS) and Traditional Method (TM) respectively. (6) To study the effect of Synectics Model (SM), Gaming Strategy (GS) and Traditional Method (TM) of instruction respectively on the creativity of the learners. (7) To compare the effect of Synectics Model (SM) and Gaming Strategy (GS) on the creativity of the learners. (8) To compare the effect of Synectics Model (SM) and Traditional Method (TM) on the creativity of the learners.(9) To compare the effect of Gaming Strategy (GS) and Traditional Method (TM) on the creativity of the learners. (10) To compare the creativity score of learners, on pre and post test taught through Synectics Model (SM), Gaming Strategy (GS) and Traditional Method (TM) respectively. (11) To study the effect of Synectics Model (SM), Gaming Strategy (GS) and Traditional Method (TM) of instruction respectively on the achievement of the learners. (12) To compare the effect of Synectics Model (SM) and Gaming Strategy (GS) on the achievement of the learners. (13) To compare the effect of Synectics Model (SM) and Traditional Method (TM) on the achievement of the learners.(14) To compare the effect of Gaming Strategy (GS) and Traditional Method (TM) on the achievement of the learners. (15) To compare the achievement score of learners, on pre and posttest taught through Synectics Model (SM), Gaming Strategy (GS) and Traditional Method (TM) respectively. (16) To see the effect of treatments (SM, GS and TM) towards self – concept and their interaction with sex of the learners. (17) To see the effect of treatments (SM, GS and TM) towards creativity and their interaction with sex of the learners. (18) To see the effect of treatments (SM, GS and TM) towards achievement and their interaction with sex of the learners. (19) To see the effect of treatments (SM, GS and TM) towards self – concept and their interaction with Socio Economic Status (SES) of the learners. (20) To see the effect of treatments (SM, GS and TM) towards creativity and their interaction with Socio Economic Status (SES) of the learners. (21) To see the effect of treatments (SM, GS and TM) towards achievement and their interaction with Socio Economic Status (SES) of the learners. 

The hypotheses of study were – (1) There will be no significant difference in the mean gain Self-concept scores of the learners taught through SM, GS and TM. (2) There will be no significant difference in the mean gain Self-concept scores of the learners taught through SM and GS. (3) There will be no significant difference in the mean gain Self-concept scores of the learners taught through SM and TM. (4) There will be no significant difference in the mean gain Self-concept scores of the learners taught through GS and TM. (5) There will be no significant difference between the pre and post test mean Self-concept scores of the learners taught through SM. (6) There will be no significant difference between the pre and post test mean Self-concept scores of the learners taught through GS. (7) There will be no significant difference between the pre and posttest mean Self-concept scores of the learners taught through TM. (8) There will be no significant difference in the mean gain creativity scores of the learners taught through SM, GS and TM. (9) There will be no significant difference in the mean gain creativity scores of the learners taught through SM and GS. (10) There will be no significant difference in the mean gain creativity scores of the learners taught through SM and TM. (11) There will be no significant difference in the mean gain creativity scores of the learners taught through GS and TM. (12) There will be no significant difference between the pre and post test mean creativity scores of the learners taught through SM. (13) There will be no significant difference between the pre and post test mean creativity scores of the learners taught through GS. (14) There will be no significant difference between the pre and posttest mean creativity scores of the learners taught through TM. (15) There will be no significant difference in the mean gain achievement scores of the learners taught through SM, GS and TM. (16) There will be no significant difference in the mean gain achievement scores of the learners taught through SM and GS. (17) There will be no significant difference in the mean gain achievement scores of the learners taught through SM and TM. (18) There will be no significant difference in the mean gain achievement scores of the learners taught through GS and TM. (19) There will be no significant difference between the pre and post test mean achievement scores of the learners taught through SM. (20) There will be no significant difference between the pre and post test mean achievement scores of the learners taught through GS. (21) There will be no significant difference between the pre and posttest mean achievement scores of the learners taught through TM. (22) There will be no sex related significant effect of three treatments (SM, GS and TM) upon Self-concept of the learners. (23) There will be no significant effect of sex upon Self-concept of learners. (24) There will be no significant effect of interaction between the treatment and sex upon the Self-concept of the learner. (25) There will be no sex related significant effect of three treatments (SM, GS and TM) upon creativity of the learners. (26) There will be no significant effect of sex upon creativity of learners. (27) There will be no significant effect of interaction between the treatment and sex upon the creativity of the learner. (28) There will be no sex related significant effect of three treatments (SM, GS and TM) upon achievement of the learners. (29) There will be no significant effect of sex upon achievement of learners. (30) There will be no significant effect of interaction between the treatment and sex upon the achievement of the learner. (31) There will be no Socio Economic Status (SES) related significant effect of three treatments (SM, GS and TM) upon Self-concept of the learners. (32) There will be no significant effect of Socio Economic Status (SES) upon the Self-concept of learners. (33) There will be no Socio Economic Status (SES) related significant effect of three treatments (SM, GS and TM) upon creativity of the learners. (34) There will be no significant effect of Socio Economic Status (SES) upon creativity of learners. (35) There will be no significant effect of interaction between the treatment and Socio Economic Status (SES) upon the creativity of the learner. (36) There will be no Socio Economic Status (SES) related significant effect of three treatments (SM, GS and TM) upon achievement of the learners. (37) There will be no significant effect of Socio Economic Status (SES) upon achievement of learners. (38) There will be no significant effect of interaction between the treatment and Socio Economic Status (SES) upon the achievement of the learner.

A sample of 170 Students of Grade VI were Purposive selected from Bal Vinay Mandir, Indore.

Verbal Intelligence Test by Ojha and Choudhary, Socio – Economic Status Scale by Kulshreshtha, Self – Concept Rating Scale by Deo, Vebal Creativity Test by Mehdi and Achievement Test was developed by researcher for data collection. 

In this study Experimental Control Group Pre – Test, Post Test design was used. 60 Working days with two hours treatment each day was divided for during treatment stage. 

The data were analyzed with the help of Mean, SD, t – Test and ANOVA.

The findings of study were – (1) There instructional treatments SM, GS and TM produced significant variations in the Self-concept of the learners. (2) No significant difference was found between the Self-concept score of groups receiving SM and GM, but SM treatment was found to superior to GS. (3) Significant variation was found between the Self-concept scores of SM and TM group. The SM treatment was found to superior to TM one is enhancing the Self-concept of the learners. (4) GS and TM treatment also produced significant variations in their Self-concept scores. GS treatment was found to superior to TM in enhancing the Self-concept of the learners. (5) The SM treatment produced significant difference between pre and post test Self-concept scores of the students. The post test mean scores were higher than pre test mean scores. (6) The post test mean and SD of Self-concept scores of GS were also found higher than pre test mean score and SD. (7) The TM treatment group did not show significant effect on Self-concept scores of the learners but post test Self-concept scores of TM treatment group were found higher than pre test ones. (8) There instructional treatment SM, GS and TM produced no significant variation on the mean gain creativity scores of the learners. (9) No significant difference was found between the mean creativity scores of SM and GM, but SM treatment was found superior to GS for enhancing the creativity of the learners. (10) No significant variation was between the creativity scores of SM and TM group, Though SM treatment was found superior to Tm treatment in enhancing the creativity of the learners. (11) GS and TM treatments did not show statistically significant variance on mean gain creativity scores of learners of the two groups, although GS treatment was found superior to TM in enhancing the creativity of the learners. (12) No significant difference was observed between pre and post test mean creativity scores of learners as results of SM treatment. But an improvement was indicated by higher post test mean scores. (13) No significant difference was found between pre and post test mean creativity scores of GS treatment group. But an improvement was evidenced by higher post test scores. (14) No significant variation was between pre and post test mean creativity scores of TM treatment group. Comparing the value of pre test and post test mean score slight difference was noticed. (15) Three instructional methods SM, GS and TM produced significant variations on the mean achievement scores of the learners of three groups. (16) No significant difference was found between the mean achievement scores of SM and GM groups of learners, but SM treatment was found to superior to GS in enhancing the achievement of the learners. (17) SM and TM treatments produced significant variance on mean gain achievement scores but SM treatment was found to superior to TM treatment. (18) The GS and TM treatments produced statistically significant variance on achievement mean gain scores and the GS treatment was found superior than TM treatment. (19) Significant variance was found between pre and post test mean achievement scores of SM treatment group. Thus Synectics treatment leads to improvement in the achievement of the learners (20) Significant difference was found between pre and post test mean achievement scores of GS treatment group. Thus the gaming treatment also effected improvement in pupils achievement. (22) No significant difference was found between pre and post test mean achievement scores of TM treatment group. Thus traditional mode of teaching did not enhance pupil’s achievement. (23) No significant effect of interaction between treatments and sex upon the Self-concept of the learners was found. (24) Mean over all creativity scores of the boys and girls belonging to three levels of treatment (SM, GS and TM) differed significantly but no significant effect of sex on creativity of the learners was discernible. (25) No significant effect of interaction between the treatments and sex upon the creativity of the learners was exhibited. (26) Mean over all achievement scores of the boys and girls belonging to three treatments (SM, GS and TM) differed significantly and also significant effect of sex on achievement of the learners was observed. (27) No significant effect of interaction between treatments and sex upon the achievement of the learners was found. (28) Mean over all Self-concept scores of the average SES and low SES belonging to three treatments (SM, GS and TM) did not differed significantly and also no significant effect of SES on Self-concept of the learners was observed. (29) No significant effect of interaction between treatments and SES upon the Self-concept of the learners was found. (30) Mean over all creativity scores of the average SES and low SES belonging to three treatments (SM, GS and TM) differed significantly and also significant effect of SES on creativity of the learners was discerned. (31) No significant effect of interaction between treatments and SES upon the Self-concept of the learners was found. (32) Mean over all achievement scores of the average SES and low SES belonging to three treatments (SM, GS and TM) differed significantly and also significant effect of SES on achievement of the learners was observed. (33) No significant effect of interaction between treatments and SES upon the achievement of the learners was discerned.