Why are two notions of Gaussian curvature are the same - what is the simplest & most didactic proof? This question is still wide open - all of the answers so far rely on magical calculations. I've only accepted an answer because, by bounty rules, otherwise one would be accepted automatically. I can't change the accepted answer, but it would be amazing to have more discussion on this question.
I'd like a nice proof (or a convincing demonstration), for a surface in $\mathbb R^3$, that explains why the following notions are equivalent:
1) Curvature, as defined by the area of the sphere that Gauss map traces out on a region.
1.5) The integral of the product of principal curvatures.
2) The angle defect of parallel transport about a geodesic triangle.
(This equivalence may be considered as either a part of the Theorema Egregium or a part of Gauss-Bonnet. Proving that numbers 1 and 1.5 are the same is pretty easy).
Motivation: I'm teaching a five-day class for very bright high-school students. The idea is to give them an impression of what geometry is about. However, when I looked at Spivak's proof of this, it was much more of a messy calculation than I expected. I'd like, if at all possible, something more conceptual, ideally with a nice picture attached to it.
Since this doesn't have to be a perfectly complete class, I'll be perfectly happy with a good illustration of why this is true instead of a rigorous proof, if a conceptual and rigorous proof is completely out of the question. 
One idea I had is to show the example of a sphere and the hyperbolic plane, and then explain that on very small scales the curvature is constant. However, then I would need a nice proof that the embeddings of the hyperbolic plane in $\mathbb R^3$ have curvature -1.
Thank you very much!
P.S. This question is related, but not quite the same (I hope), to this question:
Equivalent definitions of Gaussian curvature
P.P.S. Thank you to whomever recommended to Berger's "Panoramic View of Riemannian Geometry". it was quite useful to me. I do not know why you deleted your answer. 
That books claims there is no conceptual proof. However, I'd still be very happy with a nice illustration of why one should believe this, especially for negative curvature.
 A: There is a short conceptual proof of Gauß-Bonnet due to Chern (see also "A panoramic view of Riemannian geometry" by Berger). The argument assumes a basic familiarity with differential forms though. 
Assume that the surface $S$ is oriented so that its canonical measure $dm$ is a 2-form. Let's consider the set of all unit vectors tangent to $S$, i.e. the unitary fiber $US$ of $S$. The canonical projection $p:US\to S$ associates with each unit vector a point on $S$ where it is tangent. Now,  $US$ is a 3-manifold which posesses a canonical differential form $\zeta$. The exterior derivative $d\zeta$ is the form lifted by $p$ onto $US$  of the 2-form of the curvature $K(m)dm$. If the domain $D\subset S$ is simply connected, one can define a continuous field $\xi$ of unit vectors on $D$; therefore, $D$ can be lifted into $US$. 
The Gauß-Bonnet formula follows directly from the Stokes formula applied to $\xi(D)$ since the canonical 1-form $\zeta$ is the geodesic curvature. This is actually more than you ask for because the boundary of $D$ does not have to consist of geodesics.
A: A discrete version of curvature may help highschool students. Take a polyhedron in $R^3$ and define the curvature at a vertex $v$ by $2 \pi K(v) = 2 \pi - \theta_1 - \ldots - \theta_k$, where $\theta_j$ is the angle at $v$ of the j-th 2-face containing $v$.  This gives a measure of how sharp that vertex is.  For simplicity, assume there are only three faces meeting at $v$. Let the normal vectors to the faces be $n_1$, $n_2$, $n_3$. They are the corners of a geodesic triangle on the sphere, which is an analog of the region spanned by the Gauss map on a surface. By spherical geometry we have that the area of this triangle is $A = \beta_1 + \beta_2 + \beta_3 - \pi$, where $\beta_j$'s are the angles. One then shows that $\beta_j = \pi - \theta_j$, so we have the nice formula $ A = 2 \pi K(v)$. I think that similarily one can argue with parallel transport (see comment by pasquale below). I have not tried the computation, but it should work. Also the global Gauss-Bonnet theorem holds: if you sum the curvature of the vertices on a closed polyhedron the result is the Euler charcteristic (I think this was orginally proved by Descartes, but I'm not sure). 
A: For the high school students in question, I might suggest an infinitesimal approach, translated from the abstract language of Jacobi fields and first variation to concretely working with very small angles and areas.
A first example can come from taking a pair of equal length geodesic segments originating at a point, with a very small angle (e.g., $\epsilon$ with $\epsilon^2=0$) between them, and consider how the area of the thin geodesic triangle that is formed changes as you increase the length.  To first order in $\epsilon$, you find that the second derivative of area is minus the curvature.  This also holds for any "very nearby" geodesics that don't necessarily intersect anywhere, but define opposite sides of a very thin quadrilateral.
Similarly, you can take a degenerate geodesic triangle $ABC$, where $AB$ and $BC$ lie along $AC$, and push $B$ away from $AC$ infinitesimally (equivalently, let the angles at $A$ and $C$ become suitable infinitesimals, with the angle at $B$ being $\pi$ minus another infinitesimal).  You end up with the angle excess formula, expressed as a suitably weighted integral of the curvature along $AC$, or equivalently, an integral of curvature over the area of the triangle.
Now you just need to assemble or deform some very thin triangles into a big one.
A: There is a physical "proof" of this fact which I learned from Mark Levy;
it is in his book "THE MATHEMATICAL MECHANIC: Using Physical Reasoning to Solve Problems".
Imagine that you keep the axis of a bicycle wheel
and move it in such a way that the bicycle wheel lies in
the tangent plane to the surface.
In the initial position the wheel stays still; 
you go along the loop in the surface and stop. After that your wheel rotates by some angle $\alpha$.
If your loop was triangular this angle is its defect; this is (2) in your list. 
The parallel motion does not rotates the wheel, 
so the same result will be the same if you only rotate the axis without moving the center of the wheel.
This tells you that $\alpha$ depends only on the spherical image of the loop
and from here it is easy to see that it is proportional to the algebraic area of the domain bounded by the spherical image of the loop.
I.e., the area of the sphere that Gauss map traces out on a region;
this is (1) in your list.
A: (Really wanted to make this just a comment. And, besides, you probably know all of this already)
I guess I don't see why showing the equivalence of the three statements would be helpful to the students, unless you want to show them how calculus can be used to define certain concepts and prove theorems about them. All of the concepts involved are for me rather hard to define in a purely geometric fashion but very easy using calculus and linear algebra.
For a more geometric (but non-rigorous) view, wouldn't it be better to do something like the following (more or less taken from Guillemin and Pollack):


*

*Build a model of the hyperbolic plane.

*Show how the sum of the angles of a geodesic triangle depends on the area for a sphere or hyperbolic plane (I'm not sure how to do this) and use this to motivate the notion of Gauss curvature. 

*Or define the Gauss map $G$ and define Gauss curvature using $A(G(R))/A(R)$ for a region $R$.

*Using pictures of examples, show how the degree of the Gauss map is related to the genus of an orientable surface.

*Using c) and d), motivate the Gauss-Bonnet theorem


Another possibility is to work with a polygonal surface (maybe with only triangular faces). I don't have any constructive suggestions, but surely others do. Also, I stumbled onto this elementary proof of Gauss-Bonnet
A: This is by no means a complete answer, but a key part of the correspondence is found in the area formulas for spherical and hyperbolic triangles in terms of angular excess/defect.  Once you've convinced yourself (or your students) that a sphere is the model surface for constant positive curvature and that "wedges" on the circle have area directly proportional to their area and inversely proportional to the curvature, then there's a direct visual proof of the area formula in terms of angular excess: Proofs without words
In the case of negative curvature, once you have the Poincare disc as the model surface with  constant negative curvature, you can take a similar tack.  Replace the notion of a "wedge" of angle $\theta$ with the notion of a doubly asymptotic geodesic triangle whose finite vertex has angle $\theta$.  Once it's established that this region has area directly proportional to $\pi - \theta$ and inversely proportional to the (absolute value of) curvature, then there's a similar direct visual proof of the area formula for a geodesic triangle in terms of angular defect: Proofs without words
A: Let $K_e$ be the extrinsic Gauss curvature, defined as the product of the principal curvatures.  Let $K_i$ be the intrinsic Gauss curvature, defined by how fast geodesics deviate from each other (which is a bit more intuitive to me than using parallel transport).
While it may be complicated to show that $K_e=K_i$, I claim that it's intuitive that if $K_e$ and $K_i$ are both nonzero, then they should have the same sign:  When $K_e<0$, there are orthogonal tangent directions in which the surface bends in opposite directions away from the tangent plane.  So you'd expect that the geodesics in those orthogonal directions are deviating faster than in Euclidean space.  When $K_e>0$, the surface (nearby the point) stays on one side of the tangent plane.  Since all of the geodesics are now bending in the same direction, you'd expect that they are deviating slower than in Euclidean space.  Okay, that's not really a proof, but it makes sense.  And it seems more than adequate for high school kids.
To address your actual question, I believe that at the end of the day, Gauss's Theorema Egregium has to boil down to a computation.  I think the best we can do is use enough geometry to make the computation easy.  A good example is the proof in Frank Morgan's Riemannian Geometry: A Beginner's Guide, page 23, which is short and sweet.  However, this only shows that $K_e$ is intrinsic.  One might still want to show that the intrinsic formula that you get matches some nicer geometric description (such as $K_i$ above), which will require some further computations.
