What do you think?
Rate this book


204 pages, Kindle Edition
First published December 3, 2019
The most blatant of these is the support for the widely debunked concept of "learning styles".
The overwhelming scientific consensus is that there is no real evidence whatsoever for the existence of such styles. Confusingly, Hollins acknowledges it as a "disproven myth", yet proceeds to lay out the framework and promotes its use to the learner just a few sentences later.
This dichotomy of acknowledging the lack of evidence and it's scientific status as a myth, while simultaneously promoting it, seems like an obvious logical contradiction. Hollins justifies his reasoning by suggesting the following:
Ultimately, whatever works best for you is what you should adopt, be it from a disproven myth of learning or a scientifically proven theory. As long as it produces results, either choice is fair.
In Chapter 3, Hollins introduces a well-known study method called "Interleaving", in which the learner alternates their practice of different, but related, kinds of items or problems. Although it is indeed potent at enhancing one's learning, Hollins misunderstands the nature of the technique, as is apparent from his examples:
- you can juggle readings in English literature, European architecture, and Greek philosophy
- blending studies in art theory, art technique, and the history of pop cultural art of the ’60s
These examples do not constitute what is considered interleaved practice, as the topics that are being interleaved vary too widely. Here too, Hollins warns the reader just a few sentences prior, about "not playing too loosely with the disciplines you’re learning", only to ironically fall into exactly that trap later. It appears that he underestimates how similar the interleaved items need to be; it's about noticing the subtle differences between highly similar things.
According to research, interleaving is most useful when it comes to mathematics, but it has also been investigated with regard to identifying paintings or bird species. However, when disconnected topics, even within the same subject, are interleaved, it ceases to be interleaved practice.
The pattern of acknowledging that something is unproven or even a disproven myth, yet proceeding to support and promote it the very next sentence, permeates the entire book.
To give another example of this, regarding the highly contentious "learning pyramid", Hollins concedes the following:
"There is no real concrete, scientific proof that the learning pyramid is accurate. Nevertheless, I like the idea. There’s nothing in the explanation of the learning pyramid that seems outrageously wrong, and I agree that mixing up mediums of learning is a very a good idea."
Overall, the book is riddled with scientific inaccuracies and unproven myths that Hollins is knowingly promoting, as it seems. I thus pity the reader who unknowingly purchased this book in the hopes of learning more about this interesting field of psychology, only to be met with widely debunked pseudoscience, merely backed up by the author's personal preference, rather than empirical evidence.
If anyone is truly interested in this topic, they should instead look into Make It Stick which is a more scientifically accurate introduction to the field. I would also recommend Gurungs & Dunlosky's Study Like a Champ; it came out more recently, is geared more toward students, and is written by an actual prestigious researcher in the field of learning psychology.