Learn in depth rather than breadth

This seems to be quite an impressive piece of research on learning and teaching it's written up here: Students Benefit From Depth, Rather Than Breadth, In High School Science Courses Now we should recall the particularity of the subject area researched, but I suspect that it would be transferable. "The study revealed that students in courses that focused on mastering a particular topic were impacted twice as much as those in courses that touched on every major topic. The study explored differences between science disciplines, teacher decisions about classroom activities, and out-of-class projects and homework. The researchers carefully controlled for differences in student backgrounds."
All of which seems to cover the issues I was wondering about in principle. Though that said, I''m wondering how this relates to those who are in MBTI terms 'N' where gaining an overview seems to be important: is that the same as breadth or merely demarkating the area to be deepened?

I feel vindicated, however, by this: "The study also points out that standardized testing, which seeks to measure overall knowledge in an entire discipline, may not capture a student's high level of mastery in a few key science topics. Teachers who 'teach to the test' may not be optimizing their students' chance of success in college science courses," Only in the sense that on my teaching practice, my mentor asked me why I was teaching a class more than they would need to know about a topic for their exams. My defence was that (reflecting on my own experience) having more context and potentially interesting linked information should support the learning that you actually want to encourage (this is a consequence of a constructionist approach).