In my (anecdotal) experience in both attending and teaching classes (/presentations), richer ways to convey information incite the audience to switch off and undergo/experience the "class".
You whip out a blackboard & chalk, and the difference is palpable.
I'm not saying is impossible to teach with "richer" methods, but i am saying that there is more to teaching than conveying information.
> You whip out a blackboard & chalk, and the difference is palpable.
I don't quite understand what you're implying. Using the blackboard is a richer (more "multimedia", more "live") way to teach than just a plain lecture/presentation, right? Is it your experience that students phase out during such sections? Because my experience is quite the contrary.
I think the point from the article is that we have richer ways to convey information. I feel like that is fair. I mean we type out our thoughts, the most ineffective way to share our passion around a topic.
I'd be interested in a seeming statement you are making; the book vs video (or possibly the attempt of mixing and matching).
Ask me again after I try reading their book Quantum Country to tackle this richer repetitive approach.
I work with a lot of those folks that burn through the book a day and exercise their WPM speed to the 6 and 7 hundreds....they talk about the book after but its lost a month later and only fragments remain.