I had recently come to the same conclusion. All information coming from external sources only goes into working memory, and does not get transferred into long-term highly-connected cortical connections. The lecture (or rather the crash course tutorial) is still pretty good for dishing out lots of factual knowledge, but then you have to let the students think/practice/explain things in their own words if you want proper connections to be made.

I can tell you "In the absence of friction, the total mechanical energy of a system is conserved", and you can commit this message to memory, but to truly understand this you have to see this concept in 10-15 different situations. Only then can the abstract statement be understood. The cool part about physics is that you actually get a little //knowledge buzz// at that point...

My question to you all, is a book any different from a lecture? On the one hand, you are still "sitting there" while someone else tries to "pour" knowledge into you. On the other hand it is pretty good to see things clearly explained on paper (story telling instinct?) and, just like the Khan videos, you can "rewind" a few pages back, if you don't understand something. I would particularly like to hear the younger crown on this one: are books still cool?

BTW, David Hestenes has lots of cool papers out: http://www.google.com/search?q=David+Hestenes+test+filetype:...