Club materials

Can we educate without lecturing?

We often tell children to respect others, listen carefully, be responsible, help their peers and learn to reach agreements.

But can all this be learnt simply by listening to explanations of proper behaviour?

Let us imagine a different situation.

A nine-year-old explains to an adult how a familiar computer programme works. The adult does not rush to offer hints or pretend to know everything. They listen carefully, ask questions and try to follow the instructions.

A few minutes later, they switch roles. The adult now explains how a familiar tool works or why a particular natural phenomenon occurs.

The child does not understand something and asks for a different explanation.

Nobody is giving a specific lesson on respect, patience or mutual help. Yet all these qualities turn out to be necessary to complete their shared activity successfully.

This is the project's central idea: to develop interaction skills through actual mutual learning, rather than mainly by talking about them.

From learner to someone who can teach another person

In the early twentieth century, educator Alexander Grigoryevich Rivin proposed an unusual way of organising learning: work in changing pairs.

Instead of the usual situation in which one teacher explains the material to the whole class, learners worked with one another.

A participant received a small piece of learning material, worked through it with a partner, explained what they had learnt and then moved to another person.

Everyone had to do more than understand: they had to convey that understanding.

Accounts of Rivin's school in Kornino describe children of different ages and levels working together, using small learning cards and changing partners regularly. The impressive results reported in these accounts should be treated as historical testimony requiring separate verification, not as a guarantee of the modern project's effects.

For us, the mechanism itself is especially important.

When someone only listens to an explanation, everything may seem clear. But trying to explain the material to another person often reveals gaps.

Remembering the words turns out not to be enough. You need to build an explanation, give an example, notice the other person's difficulty and try another approach.

The person receiving the explanation is not the only one learning. The person explaining learns too.

Why we propose starting outside school

A school has a curriculum, a timetable, an assessment system and established responsibilities. Making substantial changes to learning methods in that setting is difficult.

That is why we propose beginning the research in a voluntary mixed-age club at a matnas, an Israeli community centre.

Meetings of children and adults can be organised here without having to reform the school system.

The initial stages would involve children aged 8–12, followed by teenagers aged 12–16 and a gradual widening of the age range.

Adults, including parents, grandparents, school leavers and specialists, take part as more than organisers' helpers.

They learn too.

An adult may understand a mechanism better, while a child may learn a new programme more quickly. One person can draw, another is good with numbers. Some speak Hebrew more fluently, others Russian.

In such a setting, experience no longer flows only from older people to younger ones.

Each participant has an opportunity to be both a learner and an explainer.

But equality in learning interactions does not mean equal responsibility for safety: sessions involving children are led by a trained adult, following the community centre's rules and with the necessary parental consent.

Two strands of one activity

The project has two complementary strands.

The first is acquiring specific knowledge and skills.

These may include mathematics, science, digital literacy, languages, practical skills and working with information.

The second is practising ways of interacting.

How can you check that you have been understood? How do you ask a clarifying question? How can you help without doing the task for someone else? What if people suggest different solutions?

These two strands should not, however, exist independently.

A participant might practise “retell what you heard in your own words” in a short exercise, then use it when solving a real maths problem with a new partner.

This transition from an exercise to independent action is of particular interest.

What education means here

We do not propose instilling a predetermined set of beliefs in children or assessing their personalities.

The project's educational dimension lies in gaining experience of joint activity.

Participants encounter the need to take another person into account.

You cannot explain well while paying no attention to the other person.

A shared task is hard to complete successfully if one person always makes decisions for everyone.

An agreement cannot be considered established if another participant understood it differently.

Habits that matter beyond learning may gradually develop in this way: listening, asking, explaining, acknowledging uncertainty, coordinating actions and fulfilling commitments that have been accepted.

We do not claim these changes will occur automatically. This is precisely what needs to be studied.

From club to community

Today a child and an adult work out together how a simple device works.

Tomorrow they may teach new participants.

Later, the group might want to organise a small workshop, help an older person use a phone or prepare a useful event for local residents.

This creates a possible gradual transition from sharing knowledge to cooperating on real activities.

But we need to start small.

With one clear activity, rather than a promise to change society.

With an opportunity to accept and fulfil a small commitment voluntarily, rather than a demand to be responsible.

With respect for each person's actual contribution, rather than authority based on age.

The project's main hypothesis is simple: regularly learning to understand one another and share knowledge may give people additional capabilities for organising their shared lives autonomously.

A mixed-age community centre club will provide a setting in which this hypothesis can be tested in practice.

When different languages become an opportunity

Imagine a familiar situation in Israel.

Three people sit at a table: a ten-year-old, their grandmother and another adult club participant.

The child speaks Hebrew more fluently. The grandmother is more comfortable with Russian. The third participant uses both languages but sometimes struggles to find the precise word.

Their learning task is to explain how to assemble a simple paper construction.

It seems that the language difference makes the task harder.

But this may be precisely where a new opportunity arises.

The child has to choose understandable words. The grandmother can use a drawing and ask clarifying questions. The third participant helps check whether everyone understands the sequence of actions in the same way.

The task is no longer just accurate translation.

The other person needs to actually understand the explanation and be able to use it.

Russian and Hebrew become resources for seeking understanding together, rather than obstacles to eliminate.

This is a proposed educational effect that remains to be tested.

Learning through two languages, rather than a language lesson

We do not propose replacing Russian or Hebrew study with an ordinary conversation club.

Bilingual mutual learning has a different purpose.

Participants work through specific material together and may use whichever language helps them explain and understand.

For example, one person explains in Russian, another retells it in Hebrew and a third uses a drawing.

The group then checks whether an important sequence of actions or key concept has been preserved.

The wording need not match word for word.

But not every retelling can be considered equivalent to the original explanation. In mathematics, science or safe tool use, factual accuracy needs to be checked separately.

The facilitator is responsible for ensuring that language difficulties do not become a public judgement of a person, and that errors in knowledge are not spread as acceptable differences of opinion.

How a meeting would work

We propose starting with a small group of volunteers and a trained facilitator.

A room at a community centre could be the first venue, with tables easily arranged for pair work and changing partners.

The first meetings would last around 45–60 minutes.

Each participant receives a small learning card or a practical task.

The work centres on several actions:

Understand. Read or examine the task and discuss it with a partner.

Explain. Convey the content in your own words.

Check understanding. Ask the other person to retell, demonstrate or apply the explanation.

Change partners. Try conveying the same idea to someone new.

Clarify. If the explanation did not work, find another way.

None of this is a competition for the most elegant wording.

Participants can ask for more time or use another language, a drawing or the facilitator's help. Participation remains voluntary.

Six communication exercises

To make it easier to join in, we propose a separate set of short printable cards.

These cards do not replace learning mathematics, languages or science. They help practise actions needed to learn any material together.

“Hear the other person”

One participant explains an idea; the other retells what they heard.

“Have I understood you correctly?” — “הבנתי אותך נכון?»

The other person answers, rather than a computer or an external assessor.

“Explain it differently”

One participant describes a drawing that the other must reproduce without seeing the original.

If the result differs from the task, the explainer changes their approach.

Participants may discover that repeating the same phrase more loudly does not make it clearer.

“Three perspectives and a shared step”

Participants examine a small scenario from different perspectives.

“Me”: what do I want and what do I need?

“The other person”: what might matter to them?

“Observer”: which facts do we actually know?

“Coordinator”: what next step takes both parties' interests into account?

It is important here to distinguish what the other person actually said from our assumptions about their thoughts.

“Let us agree”

Several participants want to use the same shared object.

They suggest options, discuss constraints and agree on how to proceed.

The result of the exercise is an agreement both parties understand, rather than one person's victory.

“Help without taking over”

One person has difficulty with a learning task. Another helps through questions, examples and small hints.

The aim is to preserve the partner's ability to do the work independently.

“Disagreement is not a quarrel”

Two participants suggest different ways to solve a problem.

They need to find out why each prefers their option, identify a shared goal and devise a way to compare the proposals.

Participants may retain different views if the situation does not require a single decision.

Why both children and adults are needed

In traditional learning settings, age often determines roles in advance.

The adult explains. The child listens.

A mixed-age club proposes making these roles flexible.

A child may know a modern computer programme better. An adult may know more about cooking, repairs, professional tools or another practical activity.

This does not mean the adult's experience ceases to matter.

On the contrary, they gain a new opportunity to contribute without always occupying the mentor's role.

The child too can feel that another person needs their knowledge.

Recognition can then depend not only on age or status but also on the ability to explain, listen and cooperate.

What we want to avoid

The club should not become a place for testing who is cleverer, more literate or more fluent in Hebrew.

There should be no rankings of children, competitions between generations or public analysis of personal weaknesses.

A child must not be pressured to disclose family conflicts, fears or other personal experiences.

Neutral fictional scenarios and real learning tasks are suitable for the exercises.

Particular attention is needed for children who find speaking, reading, switching languages or being in a large group more difficult.

The aim is to make participation accessible, not to make everyone act identically.

Where to begin

The first meeting might focus on just three actions:

• listen and retell;
• explain differently;
• help without doing the task for the other person.

After a few meetings, more complex scenarios involving coordination and resolving disagreements can be introduced.

The educator or facilitator observes what happens in the group, rather than who was “best”.

Do participants ask for clarification more often?

Do they try explaining differently?

Can a child independently approach an adult with a question?

Can an adult listen attentively to a child's explanation?

Are the communication methods they have learnt used on a new task without reminders?

These questions do not presume positive answers.

That is why a mixed-age bilingual club is of interest as a research setting as well as a leisure activity.

Here we can gradually explore whether learning substantive material together helps overcome language and age barriers without erasing individual differences.

What happens after someone has taught another person?

One club participant explained to another how to complete a task.

The other understood and was able to repeat the action.

An ordinary learning exercise could be considered complete at this point.

But the “Education through mutual learning” project asks a broader question:

Can regularly sharing knowledge become a basis for people's ability to organise useful joint activity independently?

This is not self-evident.

Being able to explain does not yet mean being able to reach agreements. Working well in a learning pair does not mean successfully organising a shared project. A pleasant club atmosphere does not in itself guarantee that participants will fulfil mutual commitments.

The project therefore proposes studying the transitions between several levels of human interaction.

First, people learn to understand one another.

Then they learn to coordinate small actions.

Only then, if participants are ready and willing, do they undertake real joint activities.

Sharing knowledge as a basic experience of responsibility

A. G. Rivin's method is of interest beyond its organisation of learning.

When someone explains material to another person, the result depends on more than their own intention.

They can say the right words and still not be understood.

For learning to take place, the other person must be taken into account.

The explainer needs to notice difficulties, hear questions and change the explanation if necessary.

The listener also participates: asking questions, checking understanding and trying to apply the knowledge gained.

Responsibility arises here for reasons beyond an adult declaring it important.

It becomes part of the shared action.

For research precision, however, three outcomes need to be distinguished:

1. Information was conveyed.
2. The other person actually understood the material.
3. They were able to use the knowledge independently.

These outcomes do not always coincide.

That is why the number of times cards change hands does not establish successful learning.

AI as a mirror, rather than a teacher

The project materials propose a “quiet AI” model.

Its role is to help organise the process and make certain changes visible, without becoming the central participant in the conversation.

For example, a group works with the phrase:

“To explain is to repeat information.”

After several discussions, another phrase emerges:

“To explain is to help another person understand and apply information.”

AI can display the two versions side by side and highlight the differences.

But it should not automatically declare the second formulation correct or more profound.

A change in text is not the same as improved understanding.

Moreover, the same idea can be expressed in very different words in Russian and Hebrew.

Computer comparison must therefore remain an auxiliary tool, while checking factual accuracy remains a separate task for the facilitator, participants and reliable learning sources.

The first version of the club does not need AI during the meeting at all.

Paper cards, changing partners and brief observations by the facilitator are enough.

Later, AI could be used to prepare task variants, check translations and analyse anonymised learning materials.

Only if that actually proves useful.

A good digital assistant should increase participants' autonomy rather than make them dependent on its prompts.

What possibilities do interaction exercises offer?

The supplied materials on psychological flexibility describe an interesting idea: people can learn to notice their state, distinguish several perspectives and choose an action rather than automatically repeat a habitual response.

For the mixed-age club, we propose using only the educationally appropriate part of this idea.

For example, two participants disagree on how best to complete a shared task.

Ordinarily, the conversation can quickly become a defence of each person's own solution.

The exercise proposes a different sequence.

First, each person explains their goal.

Then each tries to understand what matters to the other.

Next, participants separate known facts from assumptions.

Finally, they suggest a next shared step.

This is the transition from an exercise to a coordination skill.

However, completing an exercise successfully does not mean a participant will act in the same way in a new situation.

The main focus of testing is transfer of the skill beyond the exercise.

For example, will a child ask a clarifying question when facing a new learning difficulty?

Will an adult suggest several options rather than immediately instructing others what to do?

Will participants be able to discuss a disagreement without a prompt from the facilitator?

Where ObliNet comes in

ObliNet studies the organisation of cooperation through a network of mutual commitments.

At first glance, an educational club and such a network seem different.

In the club, people share knowledge.

In ObliNet, they coordinate actions and results.

But there may be an important link between them.

Consider a gradual transition.

First level: sharing knowledge.

One participant explains to another how to carry out an action.

Second level: working together.

Two participants agree to make an educational model. One prepares the materials; the other assembles the construction.

Third level: coordinating several participants.

The group decides to run a small open workshop at the community centre. The room, materials, invitations and programme all need preparation.

Simply exchanging knowledge is no longer enough.

Questions arise:

Who does what?

By when?

What is needed to complete the work?

How will we know everything is ready?

What happens if a participant cannot do what they promised?

These are precisely the questions ObliNet studies.

There is no need to create a digital network immediately.

Initially, participants can record their agreements on an ordinary sheet of paper.

For example:

Shared activity: prepare a paper construction workshop.

Participant A: will prepare three examples.

Participant B: will check that paper and safe tools are available.

Participant C: will prepare short instructions in Russian and Hebrew.

Community centre facilitator: will arrange the room and take responsibility for safety.

The group then checks whether everyone understands the roles and dependencies.

This is a small but observable experience of coordinating mutual commitments.

People, of course, make the decisions. AI can only help analyse the information they have agreed on.

What we actually want to test

The project should not be limited to claims that children become kinder or more responsible.

Such conclusions are too broad.

More specific questions are proposed for the first stage of research.

Understanding. After an explanation, can participants independently complete a new but comparable task?

Conveying knowledge. Do explanations become clearer to different partners?

Communication. Do participants ask clarifying questions, check understanding and try explaining differently?

Mixed ages. What changes when partners come from different generations?

Bilingualism. When does switching between Russian and Hebrew help understanding, and when does it create additional difficulties?

Autonomy. Do participants use the interaction methods they have learnt without reminders?

Joint activity. Can small tasks be coordinated and their completion confirmed?

These areas need to be studied separately so that one observation is not presented as evidence for several changes at once.

How to conduct an initial study

We propose starting with a small voluntary group at a community centre.

First, children aged 8–12 and adults.

Then, a separate adaptation for teenagers aged 12–16.

The initial cycle could include four to six meetings.

During the first sessions, participants practise mutual learning, changing partners and short exercises in understanding.

Tasks requiring more complex coordination are introduced later.

The facilitator records observable group actions rather than producing personality rankings of children.

Changes can be examined using comparable tasks at the beginning and end of the cycle, alongside observation of whether the skills learnt appear in new situations.

With such a small sample, results will be preliminary. They can help assess how understandable and feasible the approach is, but cannot establish its effectiveness for all children and adults.

A more rigorous study would require comparison with alternative session formats and an independent educational assessment.

Why safety matters more than scale

A mixed-age club brings together people with different knowledge, experience, language abilities and social positions.

This can enrich the sessions but also create difficulties.

A child may feel uncomfortable correcting an adult.

An adult may unintentionally take up all the time available for explaining.

Someone may fear making a public mistake in a less familiar language.

Clear participation rules, voluntary participation, the option to decline an exercise, a responsible facilitator and respect for personal boundaries are therefore necessary.

Children should not be psychologically profiled, participants ranked or AI used to assess behaviour covertly.

Minors' personal data, conversation recordings and learning outcomes require particular protection and appropriate permissions.

For the first meetings, minimal recording of anonymised results, without audio or video recording, is preferable.

Why society needs this

The original municipal project, “Education through mutual learning”, proposes that the involvement of parents, older generations, school leavers and residents around a school may help develop horizontal connections and local self-organisation.

A mixed-age community centre club offers a cautious, practical route towards studying this idea.

First, people simply learn together.

Then they begin to understand one another's capabilities better.

They may develop shared interests and a desire to do something useful together.

But cooperation should not be a compulsory goal for every participant. People may attend solely for knowledge and conversation.

We do not know in advance whether the club will develop into a lasting community. That is why we should begin with a small, testable trial rather than a promise of major social impact.

If mutual learning helps people both discover new things and coordinate their own actions, it may become one accessible way to develop a culture of autonomous cooperation.

This is the research connection between Rivin's method, a mixed-age bilingual club, interaction exercises and ObliNet.