Hexagon Complexity Mapper

Map a complex topic by placing factors on hexagonal tiles where adjacency signals a claimed relationship. Use when students need to surface hidden connections in a system before analysis or action.

What it does

Guides students through a hexagon mapping exercise in which they identify factors shaping a complex topic, write each on a hexagonal tile, and arrange the tiles so that adjacency — physical touching — signals a claimed relationship between two factors. The arrangement is not sorting into categories. It is a collective act of relationship-claiming. When two hexagons touch, students are asserting "these two things affect each other in some way" and must be able to explain how.

This distinction is critical. Hexagon mapping is not a brainstorming exercise with a prettier shape. It is a tool for surfacing the hidden connective tissue of complex situations: which factors cluster together because they are mutually reinforcing, which sit at the boundary of the system as external forces, and which hold the map together by appearing in multiple clusters.

The skill produces a shared visual map that becomes the input for subsequent tools such as Three Horizons mapping, systems awareness iceberg work, or agency circles.

Sources

• Hodgson, A. (1992). Hexagons for systems thinking. European Journal of System Dynamics, 59(1), 220–230.
• Meadows, D. (2008). Thinking in Systems. Chelsea Green. (systemic structure, feedback, unintended consequences)
• Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. Doubleday. (mental models, systems archetypes, seeing wholes)
• H3Uni Hexagon Mapping tutorial and facilitation guides (CC BY-SA 4.0, practitioner method)

How to use it in your lesson

For the best results with EvidenceLesson, give it:

• topic_or_challenge — The complex topic, issue, or challenge students are mapping — specific enough to generate 8–20 distinct factors
• context — School, community, ecological, or curriculum context that grounds the mapping
• student_level (optional) — Year group or age range, to calibrate vocabulary and abstraction
• mapping_question (optional) — Specific question to focus the mapping — e.g. 'What factors are shaping this situation?'
• prior_scoping_statement (optional) — A scoping statement from scoping-for-transformative-learning-inquiry, if already completed
• existing_evidence (optional) — Data, stories, observations, or student work already available about this topic

Known limitations

1. Relationship claims are hypotheses. The map represents student beliefs about the system, not verified causal structure. Named relationships should be treated as hypotheses requiring evidence.
2. Physical format matters. This skill produces guidance and suggested factors; it does not replace physical hexagonal tiles, cards, or a digital equivalent. The tactile, moveable quality of the medium is part of the method's value.
3. Works poorly in isolation. Hexagon mapping produces a shared model, not an action plan. Without follow-on tools (Three Horizons, agency circles, iceberg) the map becomes an artefact rather than an analytical tool.
4. Degrades with very large groups. In classes larger than 20, multiple small-group maps with a gallery comparison phase are more productive than a single whole-class map.

Before you deliver: a quick check

• [ ] The mapping question is specific enough to generate diverse, non-obvious factors.
• [ ] Suggested factors include a genuine mix of people, structures, values, events, and material conditions.
• [ ] Clustering guidance explicitly states that adjacency = relationship, not category membership.
• [ ] At least 3 specific relationships are named with direction and evidence level.
• [ ] Boundary hexagons are identified and interpreted.
• [ ] All four quality gates are applied and reported.
• [ ] Next step options reference real skills in the library by their skill name.

Pairs well with