This reminds me of something else -- the idea that the reason kids don't learn in school is that the material is given a dull presentation. Or that teachers are too secure in their jobs and so they aren't energized enough to engage students. If it turns out to be based on a myth, it would be best to find out before wasting a lot of resources and causing serious damage to the teaching profession.
The biggest problem with TED is that people leave the talks thinking they understand more about a topic than they actually do. There's a big difference between having a general sense of the problems a field is dealing with, and actually understanding it well enough to apply it to anything.
I think the first is great when it comes to public understand of science, if you can do it well. The second is a bit problematic when people are left with a misleading impression of what they know.
First thing. That is people's problem, not directly TED's.
And TED's talks are not focus on science divulgation.
All TED talks can basically be stored in either the 'Look what I'm doing' bag or 'This is what happened to me' bag.
I have yet to see a talk where the main focus was to teach a concept rather than explaining it very superficially in order to introduce an idea based on that concept.
Given the choice between a lecture in which I am more engaged, learn more (however slightly more), and am fundamentally just enjoying myself more or the alternative: give me the fun lecture every time, if only because I will keep coming back for more and not be afraid I am going to pass out mid-sentence.
I wonder if the test was given after a longer period of time, how would it effect the results of both groups. Hypothesis being that the TED group would retain more over time relative to the dull lecturer group.
