Barbara Oakley and Anders Ericsson on How to Get Good at Something
Comparing Barbara Oakley's learning-how-to-learn techniques with Anders Ericsson and Robert Pool's deliberate practice: what each is for, where they differ, and how to combine them.
If you want to get good at something, two names come up: Barbara Oakley, whose Learning How to Learn became one of the most popular online courses, and Anders Ericsson, the psychologist behind the research on deliberate practice. People search them side by side because both claim to explain how learning really works, and the advice sounds different.
What is the core difference?
Oakley is mostly concerned with learners who find a subject hard and want to study it more effectively. Her advice is practical and cognitive: how to chunk information, how to avoid the illusion of competence, and how to use breaks.
Ericsson studied people who became exceptional at something, from violinists to chess players, and asked what their practice looked like. His answer is about structure: practice that is designed to improve a specific aspect of performance, with feedback.
So one is a toolkit for taking in difficult material. The other is a model for building performance over years.
What does Oakley say?
Barbara Oakley, an engineering professor, wrote A Mind for Numbers (2014) and co-teaches the Learning How to Learn course with Terrence Sejnowski. A core idea is two modes of thinking. Focused mode concentrates on a problem. Diffuse mode is a relaxed state in which broader connections form. She suggests alternating between them.
Her other techniques include chunking, building a compact unit of understanding from separate pieces; spaced repetition, reviewing material over increasing intervals; and retrieval practice, testing yourself rather than rereading. She warns about the illusion of competence, where familiarity with material feels like mastery.
What do Ericsson and Pool say?
Peak (2016) was written by Anders Ericsson with science writer Robert Pool. It draws on decades of Ericsson's research, including a 1993 paper with Krampe and Tesch-Römer on expert violinists. The book argues that exceptional performers use deliberate practice.
Its elements include well-defined goals for each session, full concentration, immediate feedback, and working just beyond your current ability. Ericsson emphasizes building mental representations, which let experts see and judge more than novices can, and the value of a teacher in fields with developed training methods. He rejected the popular reading of a fixed number of hours as the cause of expertise.
How do they compare?
| Dimension | Oakley | Ericsson and Pool |
|---|---|---|
| Central question | How can I take in difficult material? | How do experts build exceptional performance? |
| Core ideas | Focused and diffuse modes, chunking, spaced repetition, recall | Deliberate practice, feedback, mental representations |
| Typical subject | Math, science, technical study | Music, chess, sport, and other performance fields |
| Role of a teacher | Helpful but not required | Central where expert training methods exist |
| Evidence base | Cognitive science, plus course and classroom experience | Studies of expert performers; contested by later meta-analyses |
| Main risk | Technique collecting instead of actual study time | Applying the idea where no clear standards or feedback exist |
| Best known for | A Mind for Numbers (2014) | Peak (2016, with Robert Pool) |
When does each one fit?
Oakley fits when you are facing a pile of difficult material, such as an exam syllabus, a new technical field, or a language's vocabulary. Her methods are about making study efficient and avoiding the false comfort of rereading.
Ericsson fits when the goal is a performance skill with recognizable standards: playing, presenting, writing, coding to a level. It tells you to design practice around specific weaknesses and get feedback fast.
Where there is no feedback or standard, Ericsson's model has less to grip. Where the aim is deep skill after the basics are known, Oakley's techniques are only a starting point.
What does this look like in practice?
Someone learning to give conference talks might use Oakley's methods to absorb the material on structure and rhetoric: summarize a chapter from memory, then check it, and space the review over a few weeks.
They would use Ericsson's approach for the performance itself: record a five-minute segment, pick one weakness such as pacing, rehearse that element deliberately, get feedback from a coach or peer, and repeat. The first builds knowledge about speaking. The second builds the skill.
"I want to get better at [skill]. Help me separate what I need to know (concepts, vocabulary, rules) from what I need to be able to do (performance). For the knowledge, design a two-week plan using retrieval practice and spaced review. For the performance, design three practice drills with a specific goal, a way to get feedback, and a note on what would make each drill slightly harder."
Why it works: separating knowing from doing lets you apply the right method to each part.
Can you use both together?
Yes. They overlap on active effort over passive review and complement each other on scope. A sensible sequence is to use Oakley's techniques to learn the underlying material quickly, then use Ericsson's structure to turn it into performance.
The shared risk is spending time on method instead of practice. Neither approach helps if the sessions never happen.
"Design a 45-minute weekly practice session for [skill] that includes a 10-minute retrieval warm-up, a 25-minute deliberate-practice block targeting one named weakness, and a 10-minute review that records what feedback I received. Tell me how to choose the weakness each week and when to switch to a different focus."
Why it works: combining a warm-up from one approach with a structured block from the other covers both knowledge and skill in a single session.
For a related situation, see Learning a Hard Skill as an Adult.
Where to go next
Barbara Oakley and Anders Ericsson both sit in the Educator category. For the originals, read A Mind for Numbers by Oakley and Peak by Ericsson and Robert Pool.
Frequently asked questions
Do Oakley and Ericsson disagree?
They start from different places rather than disagreeing. Oakley, in A Mind for Numbers (2014) and her Learning How to Learn course, focuses on techniques that help ordinary learners absorb difficult material. Ericsson, in Peak (2016, with Robert Pool), studies how experts reach high performance. Their advice overlaps on active recall and focused effort, and differs in scope. Neither author claims the other is wrong, and both argue that effort must be active and well directed instead of passive.
Is deliberate practice the same as the 10,000-hour rule?
No. Ericsson wrote that the popular 10,000-hour idea misreads his research. His 1993 paper with Krampe and Tesch-Römer studied expert violinists, and the figure was an average for one group. In Peak, he and Pool argue that the quality and structure of practice matter far more than a fixed number of hours. The practical lesson is that hours alone do not decide results, and that what you do with them matters a great deal.
Is deliberate practice contested?
Yes. A 2014 meta-analysis by Macnamara, Hambrick, and Oswald argued that deliberate practice explained a smaller share of performance differences than Ericsson's work implied. Ericsson responded that the analysis counted activities that did not meet his definition. Readers should treat the strong claims as debated, while the practical advice remains widely used. Even so, a researcher's disagreement over how much variance it explains does not remove the practical value of focused, feedback-rich practice.
What is the focused and diffuse thinking idea?
Oakley describes two modes of thinking: focused, where you concentrate on a problem, and diffuse, a relaxed state in which the brain makes broader connections. She suggests alternating between them, for example by taking a break when stuck. She draws on neuroscience research, and presents the idea as a practical aid for learners. She presents it as a practical aid built on neuroscience findings, so test it yourself by noting whether breaks help you get unstuck.
Which should I use to learn a new job skill?
Oakley's techniques, such as chunking, spaced repetition, and retrieval practice, suit acquiring knowledge quickly. Ericsson's deliberate practice suits building a skill that has clear performance standards and expert feedback. Many job skills involve both, so you might use Oakley's methods for the knowledge and Ericsson's structure for the performance. If a job skill has an observable standard, such as a clean presentation or working code, deliberate practice has something to measure against.
Can AI act as a practice coach?
It can generate retrieval questions, help break a skill into components, and design practice drills. It cannot watch you perform or give expert feedback on technique in most fields. Use it to plan and quiz, and seek a human teacher where feedback depends on seeing you do the thing. Ask it to quiz you on yesterday's material before today's session, since retrieval beats rereading in Oakley's account.
Written by Gareth Hoyle. Last updated 8 October 2026. Part of the authority.md guides library.
More guides.
Daron Acemoglu vs Ha-Joon Chang: Do Good Institutions Cause Growth, or Follow It?
Comparing Daron Acemoglu's institutions-first account of national prosperity in Why Nations Fail with Ha-Joon Chang's historical critique of the institutions literature: two views of development, with the main point of disagreement. General education.
Bill Ackman vs Carl Icahn: Two Styles of Activist Investing. Not Investment Advice
Comparing Bill Ackman's public, thesis-driven activism with Carl Icahn's decades of corporate pressure campaigns: how each approaches companies, boards, and the public. Not investment advice.
Adam Smith vs Ha-Joon Chang: The Founder of Market Economics and One of Its Historical Critics
Comparing Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations and Theory of Moral Sentiments with Ha-Joon Chang's history-based critique in Kicking Away the Ladder: what Smith actually argued, what Chang adds, and where they differ. General education.