The objectives of the study were: (1) To prepare the divergent thinking instructional material. (2) To study the effect of divergent instructional strategy on general creativity and its dimensions (fluency, flexibility and originality). (3) To study the effect of divergent instructional strategy on creativity in mathematics and its dimensions (fluency, flexibility). (4) To study the effect of divergent instructional strategy on achievement in mathematics. (5) To study the reaction of students towards divergent instructional strategy.

For field study, 72 students of VII Class were selected randomly from private Schools of Indore city.

The tools used for data collection were. Passi Test of Creativity, Moghe Test of Creativity in mathematics, Achievement Test in mathematics developed and standardized by investigator, divergent instructional strategy reaction scale developed by investigator.

The study was experimental. Non-equivalent control group pretest-posttest design was used. The study was conducted in two stages- tryout and field. After pretest administration, experimental group was treated through Divergent Instructional Strategy (DIS) by taking activities related to the topics. The treatment continued for 30 days spread over three months. The control group was taught the same content through traditional approach. 

ANCOVA, Mean, SE, and coefficient of variance were used for data analysis. 

The findings were: (1) The divergent instructional strategy was not significantly superior to the traditional instructional strategy in terms of the fluency dimension of general creativity. (2) The divergent instructional strategy was significantly superior to the traditional instructional strategy in term of the flexibility dimension of general creativity. (3) The divergent instructional strategy was not significantly superior to the traditional instructional strategy in terms of the originality dimension of general creativity. (4) The divergent instructional strategy was significantly superior to the traditional instructional strategy in terms of the general creativity. (5) The divergent instructional strategy was not significantly superior to the traditional instructional strategy in terms of the fluency dimension of creativity in mathematics. (6) The divergent instructional strategy was significantly superior to the traditional instructional strategy in terms of the flexibility dimension of creativity on mathematics and in terms of total creativity in mathematics. (7) The divergent instructional strategy was not significantly superior to the traditional instructional strategy in terms of achievement on mathematics. (8) The divergent instructional strategy was significantly effective in terms of students’ reaction towards the strategy.