The objectives of study were: (1) To study the effect of methods, levels of pre-acts and their interaction on achievement of knowledge, understanding and application objectives separately by taking intelligence as covariate. (2) To study the effect of methods, levels of pre-acts and their interaction on achievement, scientific attitude and basic science process skills separately by taking intelligence as covariate. (3) To study the effect of methods, levels of pre-acts and their interaction on retention of knowledge, understanding and application objectives and total achievement separately by taking intelligence as covariate. (4) To compare the lacking processes in terms of interaction patterns associated with the teacher demonstration, guided discovery and co-operative learning methods of teaching science. (5) To compare variation in interaction patterns due to change in prior achievement levels of pupils with respect to Teacher Demonstration Method (TDM), Guided Discovery (GD) and Cooperative Learning Method (GDLM & CLM) of teaching science. (6) To explain the relationship between significant differences in achievement, improvement of scientific attitude and basic science process skills (BSPS) in terms of differences in teaching process. 

22 lessons each on the two units selected from textbook on science in standard six, through four selected methods. Total of ninety six lessons of the duration of forty minutes each were taught by the investigator. Sample comprised of 96 students of standard six of randomly selected government higher primary schools of rural areas. 

Tools used for data collection were: Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices, Test on Basic Process Skills by Padilla Crowin and Twiert, Scientific Attitude Scale and Achievement Test in science both constructed by the investigator. 

Data analysis was done by using ANCOVA, ANOVA and t-test. 

The findings of study were: (1) TDM and CLM of teaching science differed in their effect on the achievement of knowledge objective. The TDM was significantly more effective than CLM with respect to the criterion of achievement scores on knowledge objective but CLM was as affective as GD and TD methods. TDM and CLM were equally effective with respect to knowledge objective. (2) The TDM was significantly more effective than guided DM and CLM while TDM were equally effective on the understanding and application objective respectively. (3) On total achievement in science the TDM was significantly more effective than both GDM and CLM. (4) In terms of higher and lower achievers with respect to improvement of scores on scientific attitude. The CLM was significantly more effective than GDM and TDM. (5) To the improvement of skiers of higher achievers, the GDM was significantly more effective than TDM and CLM for low achievers. (6) GDM was significantly more effective with respect to improvement of scores on science attitude of low achievers than high achievers. (7) CLM was significantly more effective with respect to improvement of scores of high achievers than low achievers. (8) The effect of GDM of teaching science on low achievers was statistically more than the effect of TDM on high achievers with respect to the improvement of scores on scientific attitude. (9) The effect of CLM on high achievers was significantly more than the GDM on low achievers with respect to scientific achievement. (10) The GDM was significantly more effective than TDM and CLM with respect to improvement of basic science process skills. (11) The TDM, GDM and CLM of teaching science were equally effective in the retention of pupils with respect to achievement on the knowledge and understanding objectives. (12) The GDM was significantly more effective than the CLM and TDM in the retention of low achievers with respect to achievement on the application objective. (13) The CLM was significantly more effective than GDM and TDM in retention of high achievers with respect to achievement on the application objective. (14) The CLM of teaching science was significantly more effective in the retention of high achievers than low achievers with respect to achievement on the application objective. (15) GDM was significantly more effective in the retention of low achievers than high achievers with respect to achievement on the application objectives. (16) The effect of GDM on low achievers was more effective than the effect of TDM on high achievers with respect to retention of achievement on the application objective. (17) The effect of CLM on high achievers was statistically more effective than the effect of TDM on low achievers. The GDM, CLM and TDM were equally effective in the retention of pupils with respect to high achievers and low achievers on total achievement. (18) The CLM and GDM of teaching science were associated with indirect patterns while TDM was associated with direct pattern to the minimum whereas the students’ direct interactions were to the maximum. (19) In CLM, the pupils were provided with more opportunities to initiate their ideas, feelings and questions either to the teacher or to another pupil than in TDM and GDM of teaching science. (20) In the TDM of teaching science, the content oriented extended lectures and demonstrations were more in both GDM and CLM of teaching science. (21) In the CLM of teaching science, the teacher praised and integrated the pupils’ ideas and feelings into the class discussion more than of TDM and CLM. (22) Teachers reacted to the pupils’ ideas and feelings more in case of GDM and CLM of teaching science than the TDM. (23) There was a significant difference between high achievers and low achievers taught through the TDM and CLM while there was no significant difference in rest of GDM with respect to the percentage of time spent on different categories. (24) Conclusions with respect to TDM of teaching science: (a) Teachers rejection of pupil behavior, pupil-initiated lack to another pupil, pupil response to another pupil and student disruption was significantly higher in the low achievers than in high achievers. (b) The teacher rejections of the pupils’ ideas and unpredictable pupil response to the teacher were significantly greater in the high achievers than in the low achievers. (c) There was a significant difference between the high and low achievers taught through the TDM with respect to the percentage of time spent on the various regions of matrix and variation in different interaction ratios. (d) The student response followed by teacher initiated behavior and confusion among the students was significantly higher in low achievers than that in high achievers. (e) Prolonged teacher initiated talk with respect to explanation of content, demonstrations and giving directions and student initiated talk followed by teacher acceptance were significantly higher in high achievers. (f) In the TDM, the content class ratio and student study state ratio were higher in high achievers than in low achievers. (25) Conclusions with respect to GDM of teaching science: (a) The scores of the high achievers where the teacher criticized, rejected and discouraged the pupils’ ideas and waited for a longer period of time to elicit answers from the pupils were significantly more than those of the low achievers. (b) In the low achievers, the predictable pupil response to the teacher and acceptance of pupils’ ideas was significantly more than that of the high achievers. (c) There was no significant difference between the low achievers and high achievers with respect to the percentage of tallies in the different areas of matrix. (26) Conclusions with respect to CLM of teaching science: (a) The teacher initiated explanation, demonstration, directions, questions and pupil initiated talk to teacher and silence were significantly more for the low achievers than of high achievers. (b) Pupil initiated talk and pupils’ response to another pupil was significantly more in the high achievers. (c) There was significant difference between the high achievers and low achievers taught through the CLM with respect to the percentage of time spent on the various regions of the matrix and variation in different interaction ratio.