The objectives were: (1) To study the effectiveness of Inquiry Training Model (ITM) in terms of students’ Higher Mental Ability in Science, General Creativity, Scientific Creativity, Inductive Reasoning Ability, Theory Building Capacity Achievement in Science and Reaction towards ITM.  (2) To compare ITM with Traditional Method in terms of students’ Higher Mental Ability in Science, General Creativity, Scientific Creativity, Inductive Reasoning Ability, Theory Building Capacity and Achievement in Science, separately by taking Intelligence, SES Scientific Aptitude and previous Achievement in Science as covariate. (3) To study the influence of Treatment, Sex, Area and their various interaction on students’ Higher Mental Ability in Science, General Creativity, Scientific Creativity, Inductive Reasoning Ability, Theory Building Capacity and Achievement in Science, separately. (4) To study the contribution of Previous Achievement in Science, General Creativity, Scientific Creativity and Scientific Aptitude in the prediction of Higher Mental Ability in Science, Inductive Reasoning Ability, Theory Building Capacity and Achievement in Science, separately of the students taught through ITM. (5) To study the change in Attitude towards Science of the students treated through ITM as well as those treated through Traditional Method. (6) To study the change in students’ Reaction towards ITM.  

An Incidental Purposive Sample of 226 students of standard IX was taken.

The data were collected by using Higher Mental Ability test in Science prepared by Sansanwal and Joshi., General Creativity test constructed by A. D. Shah. Scientific Creativity Test constructed by Raval. Inductive Reasoning Ability Test prepared by Ramila salvi. Intelligence Test by Desai and Bhatt. Theory Building Capacity Test prepared by investigator. Achievement in Science test prepared by investigator, Reaction towards ITM prepared by R.P. Upadhyaya, Scientific Aptitude scale prepared by Pandit, Scientific Attitude Test prepared by the investigator, SES scale by I.A.Vora and previous Achievement in Science was measured by considering the scores obtained by the students on the previous year’s exam.

Pre-test Post-test Non - equivalent Control Group Design was used.

The collected data were analyzed through correlated t-test, percentile, coefficient of variance, ANCOVA, 2 X 2 X 2 Factorial Design ANOVA of unequal cell size, multiple regression and chi-square. 

The major findings were: (1) ITM and TM were found to be equally effective in terms of HMA in Science. (2) ITM was found to be more effective than TM in terms of General Creativity (GC), Scientific Creativity (SC), Inductive Reasoning (IR), Theory Building Capacity, (TBC) Achievement in Science (AS) and Reaction towards ITM. (3) ITM was found to be significantly superior to TM in terms of GC, SC, IR, TBC and AS, but to be insignificant in term of HMA in Science when the groups were matched statistically with respect to Intelligence, SES, Scientific Aptitude (SA) and previous Achievement in Science (PAS). (4) Treatment produced differential influence on GC, IR, TBC and AS, while insignificant influence on HMA in Science. (5) Sex produced significant influence on SC and TBC but not on HMA in Science, GC, IR and AS. (6) Area produced significant influence on GC, and AS but not on HMA in Science, SC, IR and TBC. (7) Treatment and Sex produced significant influence on SC, but not on HMA in Science, GC, SC, TBC and AS, (8) Treatment and Area produced significant influence on GC, SC, TBC and AS, but not on HMA in Science and IR. (9) Sex and Area produced significant influence on TBC, but not on HMA in Science, GC, SC, IR and AS. (10) Treatment, Sex and Area produced significant influence on SC, IR, TBC and AS, but not on HMA in Science and GC. (11) ITM was superior to Traditional Method in bringing about significant favourable change in the students’ Attitude Towards Science.