Learning by listening: what audio does that a page cannot
Audio is not a worse version of reading. It is good at different things, and knowing which is the difference between a useful commute and a wasted one.
There is a persistent idea that listening is what you do when you are too lazy to read. It is wrong in both directions: audio is worse at some things than text, and considerably better at others.
What a page is better at
Anything you need to re-read. Code, formulas, definitions, numbers — text lets your eye go backwards without losing your place, and that backwards movement is most of what careful reading is. An audio explanation of a syntax rule is close to useless.
What audio is better at
Shape. The relationship between ideas, why one thing came before another, what an argument is for. Two people discussing a topic will say the connecting sentences that a written summary leaves out, because speech cannot skip them without sounding wrong.
It also works in the places reading does not: walking, driving, washing up. That is not a small advantage. Twenty-five minutes of a subject you would otherwise not have touched that day is a real gain over zero.
Which is why an episode covers a module, not a lesson
A single lesson makes a two-minute recording, and two minutes of audio is an awkward object — too short to settle into, too long to be a summary. A module is four or five lessons, which comes out at twenty-five to thirty-five minutes: the length of a commute.
The episode is a conversation between two hosts you name and give voices to, or a single narrator if you prefer. You choose that per programme, because a jazz course and a statistics course have no business sounding the same.