This hexagonal thinking example gives you a short original reading, a seven-card deck, and two arrangements to compare. Choose a few connections worth defending, then explain them with evidence from the text.
Give every group the same material
Use this fictional park-planning passage:
S1. The park committee shares three benches between a reading group and a games group.
S2. Both groups request the shaded area.
S3. The committee proposes a time schedule instead of giving either group permanent ownership.
S4. Visitors may ask for an exception if they give a reason.
S5. The committee will review recorded requests after a trial.
S6. No final schedule or trial results are supplied.
The deck contains Access, Fairness, Rules, Exceptions, Evidence, Review, and Resources. Each idea appears on a hexagon, giving it up to six sides that could touch neighboring ideas.
The teacher-authored hexagonal thinking guide on Cult of Pedagogy describes arranging and rearranging a shared concept deck, discussing the connections, and explaining selected intersections with textual support. This park passage and its two arrangements are original teaching material.
Compare what the two centers emphasize
Choose Layout A to see Rules in the center, with the other six cards touching its edges. This arrangement invites a discussion of how the proposed schedule relates to access, resources, and exceptions.
Choose Layout B to put Access in the center. The same six remaining ideas now surround it. That arrangement invites the group to explain how the schedule, the benches, and the exception process affect access.
Neither layout is the answer key. The center records an emphasis the group should be able to explain. Keep the passage unchanged when switching between them so you can compare the interpretations against the same material.
Explain a connection someone could challenge
Select Rules and Exceptions in Layout A. A possible explanation is:
S3 proposes a schedule, while S4 allows requests for exceptions. We placed these ideas together because the exception process operates alongside the proposed rule. The text does not say every request will be granted.
Select Access and Resources in Layout B:
S1 gives the groups three shared benches, and S2 says both want the shaded area. We connected access with resources because the discussion concerns who can use that limited space and when. The passage has not supplied a final allocation.
Each explanation names the relationship and the relevant sentences. “They are related to the park” would be too broad to explain why these cards should touch.
Keep a disputed link in the discussion
Suppose a group connects Fairness and Exceptions. One learner argues that exceptions make the schedule fairer; another worries that they could favor the people who ask most often.
The passage allows requests but gives no decision rules or trial results. The group can record the disagreement and ask what additional information would help. It should not claim the trial already proved either view.
Ask each group to explain two or three selected connections, including one that caused debate. Another group can offer an alternative arrangement or question the explanation. This keeps the work focused on reasoning instead of writing a caption for every touching edge.
Give the group a small record of its reasoning
For each chosen connection, record:
| Field | What the group writes |
|---|---|
| Connected ideas | The two concepts, or the specific intersection being discussed. |
| Explanation | How the ideas connect in this reading. |
| Evidence | The sentence references and the words that matter. |
| Disagreement or open question | A different interpretation or missing information. |
The example preserves temporary explanation notes when you switch layouts. Its blank deck and explanation scaffold are separate from the worked arrangements. You can use paper hexagons for an open arrangement task, or prepare a digital version that lets groups compare proposed layouts.
Create a set for your own reading
Create one complete, self-contained HTML hexagonal thinking activity.
Learner group and discussion purpose: [FILL IN]
Original or permitted reading with sentence IDs: [PASTE]
Concept deck: [LIST]
Two proposed arrangements, if wanted: [DESCRIBE]
Selected connections, explanations, and evidence references: [PASTE]
Disputed connections or unanswered questions: [PASTE]
Render actual hexagons with adjacent cards touching along their sides.
For a seven-card center-and-ring arrangement, show six real center-edge
adjacencies. Use the same deck and reading in both proposed layouts.
Do not present a correct-layout score or grade arbitrary explanations.
Let readers switch layouts and select named connections to inspect the
relationship, evidence, and open question. Provide keyboard-accessible
selection rather than making dragging the only way to use the activity.
Keep source text and supplied explanations separate from group notes.
Include a separate blank concept deck and explanation scaffold. Ask
for connected ideas, relationship, evidence, and a disputed point.
Preserve typed explanations when switching layouts and ask before
resetting them. Keep input local; do not claim saved student work.
Use text of at least 16px and a layout readable at 360px without
horizontal page scrolling. Put CSS and JavaScript inline with no
external dependencies. Return the complete HTML.
Share the explanation with the arrangement
When groups compare their work, show the explanation beside the selected connection. A picture of touching hexagons alone leaves another group to guess what the arrangement means.
For an HTML reading copy, NOS lets you revise an explanation directly on the page after a class discussion. For example, change “exceptions make the schedule fair” to the group's narrower claim about what S4 permits, and retain the unanswered question about how requests will be decided. Use that revision to open the next discussion.