I don't know that this is really a controversial viewpoint.
Video is one of the worst ways to learn.
Anecdotally, think of times at high school when a teacher has put on a video: it's typically to distract the students so that the teacher can have some time out from interacting. It has a similar function to leaving a baby in front of The Happy Little Elves. It's better than having no stimulus, but no serious learning is expected from that.
Although the article says "Watching videos is not better (or worse) than sitting through lectures", I would even disagree with that. A good lecturer has the opportunity to gauge the audience and adjust their lecture depending on how many students are throwing paper aeroplanes (or looking lost). This just doesn't happen with video.
Video is one of the worst ways to learn. Anecdotally, think of times at high school when a teacher has put on a video: it's typically to distract the students so that the teacher can have some time out from interacting. It has a similar function to leaving a baby in front of The Happy Little Elves. It's better than having no stimulus, but no serious learning is expected from that.
Although the article says "Watching videos is not better (or worse) than sitting through lectures", I would even disagree with that. A good lecturer has the opportunity to gauge the audience and adjust their lecture depending on how many students are throwing paper aeroplanes (or looking lost). This just doesn't happen with video.