Which type of learning are these meant for? They seem geared towards a very narrow range of subjects and a very particular testing style.
Example: "Don't repeatedly solve problems you already know how to solve." That's great if the test is only looking to see whether you know how to solve the problem. If instead you are going to be tested on how quickly you can solve multiple iterations of the problem, extensive repetition is a necessity.
There are also times when passive reading wholly absent understanding is not a bad things. This is particularly true in law and history. Any law student who properly understands an assigned reading prior to a lecture need not bother attending class. Often you must just read and retain material on the expectation that it will make sense later. Either it will be explained in person, or at some point you will attain a critical mass of knowledge. At law school that is normally at the start of the second year, when you start making links between the various disciplines and suddenly it all starts making sense.
Example: "Don't repeatedly solve problems you already know how to solve." That's great if the test is only looking to see whether you know how to solve the problem. If instead you are going to be tested on how quickly you can solve multiple iterations of the problem, extensive repetition is a necessity.
There are also times when passive reading wholly absent understanding is not a bad things. This is particularly true in law and history. Any law student who properly understands an assigned reading prior to a lecture need not bother attending class. Often you must just read and retain material on the expectation that it will make sense later. Either it will be explained in person, or at some point you will attain a critical mass of knowledge. At law school that is normally at the start of the second year, when you start making links between the various disciplines and suddenly it all starts making sense.