The objectives of the study were: (1) To develop the instructional strategy and study its’ effectiveness in terms of  (a) students’ performance on criterion tests and comprehensive test, and (b) students’ reactions towards various components of the instruction strategy and instructional strategy as a whole. (2) To compare the adjusted mean overall achievement scores of the students taught through developed instructional strategy with those taught through traditional method by taking intelligence and students’ achievement in social science of class X as covariate separately. (3) To compare the adjusted mean economics understanding scores of the students taught through developed instructional strategy with those taught through traditional method by taking intelligence and students’ achievement in social science of class X as covariate separately. (4) To compare the adjusted mean graphical interpretation scores of the students taught through developed instructional strategy with those taught through traditional method by taking intelligence as covariate. (5) To compare the adjusted mean logical reasoning scores of the students taught through developed instructional strategy with those taught through traditional method by taking intelligence as covariate. (6) To compare the adjusted mean concept attainment scores of the students taught through developed instructional strategy with those taught through traditional method by taking intelligence as covariate. (7) To study the effect of treatment, personality and their interaction on achievement of the students. (8) To study the effect of treatment, intelligence and interaction on achievement of the students. 

The hypotheses were: (1) The adjusted mean overall achievement scores of students taught through developed instructional strategy do not differ significantly from those taught through traditional method when intelligence and students’ achievement in social science of class X were taken as covariate separately. (2) The adjusted mean economic understanding scores of students taught through developed instructional strategy do not differ significantly from those taught through traditional method when intelligence and students’ achievement in social science of class X were taken as covariate separately. (3) The adjusted mean graphical interpretation scores of students taught through developed instructional strategy do not differ significantly from those taught through traditional method when intelligence and students’ achievement in social science of class X were taken as covariate separately. (4) The adjusted mean overall logical reasoning scores of students taught through developed instructional strategy do not differ significantly from those taught through traditional method when intelligence and students’ achievement in social science of class X were taken as covariate. (5) The adjusted mean concept attainment scores of students taught through developed instructional strategy do not differ significantly from those taught through traditional method when intelligence and students’ achievement in social science of class X were taken as covariate. (6) There was no significant effect of personality on overall achievement of the students. (7) There was no significant effect of treatment on overall achievement of the students. (8) There was no significant effect of interaction between treatment and personality on overall achievement of the students. (9) There was no significant effect of intelligence on overall achievement of students. (10) There was no significant effect of interaction between treatment and intelligence on overall achievement of the students.

For the study sample was drawn in two stages. For tryout, 30 students of Agrawal Higher Secondary and Kamla Neharu H.S. Indore were taken. For final stage, 30 students of class X of Indore were selected for control group and experimental group.

To measure the variable Verbal Intelligence: Test by Ojha and Chaudhari, Maudsley Personality Inventory adopted by Jalota and Kapoor and Economic Understanding Test developed by Singh were used. Apart from these, Criterion Test for achievement, Concept Attainment Ability Test (the test-retest reliability and split-half reliability coefficients were 0.74 and 0.72 respectively), Logical Reasoning Test (test-retest reliability and split-half reliability coefficients were 0.72 and 0.70 respectively) and Graphical Interpretation Ability test (test-retest reliability coefficient was found 0.73) were constructed and standardized by the Investigator. 

The present study was posttest only control group design. During treatment experimental group was taught through developed instructional strategy along with feedback. On other hand control group was taught through traditional method.

To analyze the data percentage, percentile, ANCOVA, 2 X 2 factorial ANOVA were used.

The findings were: (1) The developed Instructional Strategy was found to be effective in terms of achievement of students on criterion test, comprehensive test and reaction of the students towards various components of Instructional Strategy and Instructional Strategy as a whole. (2) The developed Instructional Strategy was found to be significantly superior to traditional method when (a) the students’ mean overall achievement scores were adjusted with respect to Intelligence, (b) students’ mean logical reasoning scores were adjusted with respect to Intelligence, (c) students’ mean concept attainment scores were adjusted with respect to Intelligence, (d) students’ mean overall achievement scores were adjusted with respect to the students’ achievements in social science of class X, (e) students’ mean economic understanding scores were adjusted with respect to intelligence, (f) students’ mean economic understanding scores were adjusted with respect to the students’ achievement in social science of class X, and (g) students mean graphical interpretation scores were adjusted with respect to intelligence. (3) There was a significant effect of treatment on overall achievement of student. (4) There was no significant effect of personality (extroversion-introversion) on overall achievement of the students. (5) There was no significant effect of interaction between treatment and personality on overall achievement of students. (6) There was no significant effect of intelligence on overall achievement of students. (7) There was no significant effect of interaction between treatment and intelligence on over all achievement of the students