D. Lambert | Secondary | Science
In a recent JCT newsletter the method of hexagonal thinking proposed as a way to promote critical thinking. The method was promoted at a recent JCT cluster day for science too. I challenged it then and I am challenging it now. Just because something is new or different, or even labelled as creative, doesn’t mean it is useful or practical to use. I see some obvious flaws with this method and I can't ever see myself using it.
“Hexagonal thinking is a simple method that yields big critical thinking results. It is a creative mode for discussion that allows learners to think about concepts and connections in a different way. The learning occurs as students connect hexagons as a way of linking terms or concepts. If done in groups, debate and discussion will most likely occur as students justify why one hexagon should be connected to another. As the teacher, these conversations and justifications can be assessed to gauge understanding.” - JC Today Issue 31
So here are 6 reasons why I wont be using this method.
1. Why 6? Are squares not better? Triangles seem cool though. Is heptagonal thinking is too far or would people be confused what how many sides it would have? Maybe 6 is the sweet spot? My money is on the fact the number is probably plucked from thin air.
2. So students arrange all the hexagons in a pattern. Hexagons are placed beside other hexagons where they see connections. There are so many possible patterns and combinations that nearly each position can be justified. That’s the point some will say. I get it, it might stretch student thinking, but it is a haven for misconceptions too. Some hexagons will end up beside other ones that have no (meaningful) connection. The student hasn’t a clue why. Student assumes they are linked. Student is wrong. Misconception embedded. More work later to undo that.
3. Do you know why squares would have been better? Easy to cut out. To cut out 20, 6-sided shapes is a pain. I have much better things to do in my evenings. If you say the students should cut them out then they I’d say they have much better things to do with their class time. Honestly all the effort here for what?
4. What if they are good? What if they do make students think? The next question then is are they best use of time right now? Would hexagonal thinking be better than an interleaved question set, with synoptic questions? It wouldn’t. Hexagonal thinking is too paradoxically too rigid and too vague at the same time. But apparently the “learning occurs as students connect hexagons...”. That needs looking into...
5. So I want to know how well my students understand the topic. I circulate through the room and I see the patterns emerging at each group but they are all different. The only way I know the hexagons are promoting their learning here is if I ask each individual student to justify each connection made in their pattern. That is metal. I don’t have time to listen to all the connections of each kid, never mind give them feedback on it. It is the most inaccurate assessment I have seen. Despite this the JCT say “these conversations and justifications can be assessed to gauge understanding.” Can it? Maybe for 1 or 2 students but even at that I have ignored the rest of the class; this is also assuming their group work is going perfectly (which I have ever yet to see). I get no meaningful information on student understanding from this task, which means I have no clue whether it warrants re-teaching the topic.
6. I have no more reasons, but 6 reasons why I think hexagonal thinking is poor use of everyone’s time is better than 5 reasons for a 6-sided shape related activity. I just plucked the number out of thin air.