Hexagonal Thinking¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 3 claims (3 for) · 8 studies (4 causal, 3 quant-synthesis, 1 review), q3–q4 · 3 of 8 report an effect size

Description¶

Hexagonal thinking is a mixed retrieval and elaboration strategy in which learners write concepts, events, or forces on hexagonal cards (physical or digital) and arrange them edge-to-edge to represent relationships. Each junction is a claim — this causes that, this supports that — which learners must justify in discussion or writing. Because every hexagon has six sides, the format forces multiple connections per idea rather than a single linear chain, producing a web of relationships instead of a list.

Design Implications¶

Hexagonal thinking combines retrieval of prior learning with elaborative connection-making: learners must first recall the content written on each hexagon, then generate and defend relationships between ideas Elaborative interrogation and self-explanation improve learning by prompting learners to connect new material to what they know. [+M]. The activity functions as a low-stakes, discussion-based alternative to Concept Mapping — less precise about relationship labels, but faster to set up and more generative in group settings Concept mapping improves learning by making relational structure explicit. [+M]. Its learning value depends almost entirely on the justification step: arranging hexagons without explaining the connections reduces the task to spatial manipulation.

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Hexagonal cards, cut paper, or a digital tool (Google Slides, PowerPoint with hexagon shapes, or dedicated tools such as Jamboard templates or Flippity)
• A curated set of 10–25 concepts at an appropriate grain size — too many creates clutter, too few makes connections trivial
• A foundational understanding of the concepts being connected; hexagons are for consolidating and relating knowledge, not acquiring it first
• A requirement that learners articulate why each edge connection exists, verbally or in writing (Articulation)

Constraints¶

• Ineffective as a first encounter with material — learners without prior knowledge cannot generate meaningful connections and will produce arbitrary adjacency [-M]
• Connections are often ambiguous: one hexagon edge can "explain" many relationships, and groups may settle for plausible-sounding rather than accurate links unless the teacher probes justifications [~M]
• The "there are no wrong answers" framing sometimes used with this activity undermines its formative value; accuracy of connections must be checked against the discipline's causal structure [-W]
• Time-intensive relative to the retrieval benefit; the elaboration and discussion, not the arrangement, carry the learning payoff

Implementation Variability¶

• Silent hexagons: learners arrange individually as a retrieval warm-up, then compare arrangements in pairs to surface disagreements
• Missing hexagons: give learners the connections but leave blank hexagons they must identify and fill in — increases generative demand
• Quotation hexagons: use short primary-source quotes or images instead of terms, raising inference demands (common in English and history)
• Digital versions allow rearrangement and annotation but lose the tactile, whole-table negotiation of physical cards

Target Learners¶

• Secondary and higher-education learners who already have baseline knowledge of the topic [-M if used before instruction]
• Small groups of 3–4, where negotiating connections produces argumentation and Class Discussion Collaborative learning with structured interaction improves achievement. [+M]
• Less suitable for young learners or novices, who lack the knowledge base to generate defensible connections

Target Learning Goals¶

• Relational knowledge: understanding how concepts, causes, and consequences interconnect rather than recalling isolated facts
• Argumentation: justifying each connection with evidence (Argument Construction)
• Preparation for extended writing — a completed hexagon web is effectively a pre-writing outline for an essay or Case Studies response

Instructions¶

1. Select 10–25 key concepts from recently taught material and write one per hexagon.
2. In groups of 3–4, learners arrange hexagons so touching edges represent meaningful relationships, discussing and disputing placements.
3. Require justification: each group explains (orally or in writing) why specific edges touch, citing evidence (Articulation).
4. Groups compare webs; the teacher highlights divergent arrangements and probes the reasoning behind contested connections.
5. Follow with individual synthesis — a paragraph, essay plan, or annotated photo of the web — to consolidate the relational structure.

Related Strategies¶

• Concept Mapping — the labeled, hierarchical cousin; more precise about relationship types but slower to build
• Activating Prior Knowledge — hexagons can serve as an activation task at the start of a unit, surfacing what learners already connect
• Case-Based Learning — hexagon webs can map the forces at play within a case before analysis
• Student-generated mapping exercise

Examples¶

• History (secondary): students place events, leaders, economic conditions, and ideologies on hexagons to build a causal web explaining a revolution, then defend the web as an essay plan.
• English literature: hexagons hold themes, symbols, quotations, and characters; edge justifications become topic sentences for analytical writing.
• Science: linking processes, structures, and environmental factors in an ecosystem unit before a systems-thinking assessment.
• Digital template: Flippity's hexagon template or hexagon shapes in Google Slides allow remote and asynchronous use.

Key Sources¶

• Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. doi:10.1177/1529100612453266
• Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them. Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01.
• Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
• Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379. doi:10.3102/0013189X09339057