Front. Educ. Frontiers in Education Front. Educ. 2504-284X Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/feduc.2022.1098967 Education Correction Corrigendum: Fail, flip, fix, and feed – Rethinking flipped learning: A review of meta-analyses and a subsequent meta-analysis Kapur Manu 1 * Hattie John 2 Grossman Irina 2 Sinha Tanmay 1 1Professorship for Learning Sciences and Higher Education, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland 2Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia

Edited and reviewed by: Gavin T. L. Brown, The University of Auckland, New Zealand

 *Correspondence: Manu Kapur manukapur@ethz.ch

This article was submitted to Higher Education, a section of the journal Frontiers in Education

 30 11 2022 2022 7 1098967 15 11 2022 18 11 2022 Copyright © 2022 Kapur, Hattie, Grossman and Sinha. 2022 Kapur, Hattie, Grossman and Sinha

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

 A corrigendum on Fail, flip, fix, and feed – Rethinking flipped learning: A review of meta-analyses and a subsequent meta-analysis by Kapur, M., Hattie, J., Grossman, I., and Sinha, T. (2022). Front. Educ. 7:956416. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.956416 flipped learning productive failure meta-analysis higher education active learning

In the published article, there was an error in the in-text description of Table 6.

A correction has been made to Results, “Moderators (RQ3a),” paragraph 9. This sentence previously stated:

“Table 6 shows that, in all but four instances, the two means were statistically significantly different (P < 0.01).”

The corrected sentence appears below:

“Table 6 shows that, in all but four instances, the two means were not statistically significantly different (P > 0.01).”

The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.