I thought about it some more, and I find this a particularly nice way.
First, we prove that the volume is \frac43 \pi R^3, as follows. Dissect the sphere into infinitesimal disks, with surface \pi r^2 (this can again be proven by straightforward integration, but I'll leave this to you if you wish, and focus on the main line) and height dz. From the Pythagorean theorem, we can relate the radius r to the height coordinate z, as shown in the attachment: r^2 = R^2 - z^2. Now the total volume of the sphere is found by adding the volumes \pi (R^2 - z^2) \, \mathrm{d}z from z = -R to R, which indeed gives us
\int_{-R}^R \pi (R^2 - z^2) \, \mathrm{d}z = \frac43 \pi R^3.
Now, suppose we also have a sphere with a slightly smaller radius, R - h. If we substract the volumes, we get the volume of a spherical shell. You should probably convince yourself geometrically, that if we take h very small, we can get the volume of the spherical shell of radius R and thickness h; and by dividing out by the "thickness" we get the surface, which is hence
\frac{ \frac43 \pi R^3 - \frac43 \pi (R - h)^3 }{ h }.
Now we see that taking the limit for h to zero, will give us the surface area, but this is actually the definition of
\frac{d}{dR} \left( \frac43 \pi R^3 \right)
which equals 4 \pi R^3.
I realize the weak point is the step where I claim that the surface is the derivative of the volume, so you should think a bit more about this and convince yourself that it is actually allowed (I don't know the exact details, but I believe that for compact sets in Euclidean space, it generally is).