I like a protocol I can run again without spending half the class explaining the directions. CyberSandwich is one of those. Students read and take notes, compare with a partner, and then write. Simple structure. Plenty of room for thinking. But I wanted to change up the middle.
How I Run CyberSandwich
Here’s how I typically run it. Students get about 10 minutes to read and take notes. I keep the reading to about a page or a page and a half. Enough to give them something to work with, but manageable for the time they have.
The notes can look different depending on the reading and the students. Sometimes I ask for five important facts that will help them answer our question. Sometimes I scaffold the notes with questions. Sometimes a graphic organizer makes sense because it matches the structure of the text. Make the note-taking fit your students and your class. They need something useful to bring to the conversation and eventually use in their writing.
The second part is comparing notes with a partner. What did you write down? What did I catch that you missed? What do we have in common? This is such an important part of the process because students get to talk through what they read before responding on their own.
Then they spend about 10 minutes writing a response to the prompt or question. Mine might write in Scriblit, on paper, or in a Google Doc or Slide. Again, whatever works. The platform can change. They still need to answer the question and support their thinking.
Changing the Middle
Here’s where I switched things up. I’ve always valued the partner discussion, but having students rewrite facts they had just written down felt a little repetitive. I wanted to give them a reason to talk through their choices. So I borrowed a piece from Building Thinking Classrooms.
Students partner up, stand up, and head to a whiteboard with their notes. Their job is to discuss what they collected and create a Top 3 or Top 5 list of facts that best help answer our question. That last part matters. A fact might be interesting, but does it help answer what we’re asking?
Now they have a decision to make together. If both students bring five facts, everything might not make the board. They have to compare, explain their choices, and decide what belongs. Which facts overlap? Which ones give them the strongest evidence? Is there something their partner found that they should include? It gives the discussion a purpose and something to produce.
I also like that it gets students up and moving during the lesson. They’ve spent time reading and taking notes independently. Now they’re standing beside a partner, talking through the reading, and making their thinking visible.
A Room Full of Evidence
And when it’s time to write, the facts stay up. Students are surrounded by everyone’s Top 3 or Top 5. They can look around the room and pull from what other pairs thought was important. Maybe another group noticed something they missed. Maybe seeing a fact on the board reminds them of a detail they can use. They still write their own response, but now they have their notes, their partner conversation, and a room full of evidence to help them.
It’s a small change, and that’s part of why I like it. CyberSandwich still follows the same sequence: read and take notes, compare and discuss, then write. I’ve just given that middle piece a little more movement and a clearer job. Get up. Talk it through. Decide what matters. Then use it.
Moler's Musings 