This is a very well thought-out analysis of the textbook and lecture modalities for learning. I don't understand the virulent negative responses from many of t

This is a very well thought-out analysis of the textbook and lecture modalities for learning. I don't understand the virulent negative responses from many of the comments here—perhaps it's just a reaction about the clickbaity title? Take it easy y'all. The thesis of the article is much more nuanced that the title would suggest. A more appropriate title would be "Analysis of the relative benefits of textbooks and lectures as medium of instruction, and ways we can improve on them." Specifically, the author talks about the assumptions (in caricature) of how learning works in lectures: "The lecturer says words describing an idea; the class hears the words scribbles in a notebook; then the class understands the idea." and similar assumptions in textbooks "The author describes an idea in words on the page; the reader reads the words; then the reader understands the idea. When the reader reaches the last page, they’ve finished the book." The above two "learning APIs" are in use widely today with various levels of "support" for learners provided by the lecturer/author and the learning setting. In the end though, the hard work of understanding falls on the learner. It's on the learner to absorb, incorporate, relate, and learn to apply the knowledge. The author points out that rather than thinking about medium of conveying information (lecture, video, text), we should think about "learning API design": what tools, learning modalities, structured activities, projects, and workflows can we provide for learners to foster the cognitive processes needed for learning to happen?