In the original article, there was an error. The article states that “Results from the analysis were discussed with the second and fourth author. Finally, in a process of selective coding by the first, second and fourth author, themes were related to each other to come to an overarching model of the data” (p. 4).
However, as stated correctly in the Author Contributions, coding was conducted in collaboration between the first, second and last (i.e., fifth instead of fourth) author. Results from the analysis were discussed with the third and fourth author.
A correction has been made to the Methods section, subsection Analysis, Paragraph 2:
Initial, open coding was done by the first author. This was done in a line-by-line fashion, in which representative codes were assigned to the participants' utterances. During this process, several meetings were held with the second and last author to discuss the codes. After arriving at an initial codebook, codes were related to each other in a process of axial coding. During this process, codes were compared and contrasted with each other, looking for connections in order to create themes from overlapping codes. This step was initially done by the first author, with the second and last author each coding a non-overlapping 25% of the codebook to ensure rigor. Findings from this step were discussed until consensus was reached. Results from the analysis were discussed with the third and fourth author. Finally, in a process of selective coding by the first, second and last author, themes were related to each other in order to come to an overarching model of the data.
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.
Summary
Keywords
problem–based learning, desirable difficulties, self-regulated learning, learning strategies, mixed methods<, research methodology, grounded theory analysis
Citation
Rovers SFE, Stalmeijer RE, van Merriënboer JJG, Savelberg HHCM and de Bruin ABH (2020) Corrigendum: How and Why Do Students Use Learning Strategies? A Mixed Methods Study on Learning Strategies and Desirable Difficulties With Effective Strategy Users. Front. Psychol. 11:261. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00261
Received
31 January 2020
Accepted
03 February 2020
Published
20 February 2020
Approved by
Frontiers Editorial Office, Frontiers Media SA, Switzerland
Volume
11 - 2020
Updates
Copyright
© 2020 Rovers, Stalmeijer, van Merriënboer, Savelberg and de Bruin.
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.
*Correspondence: Sanne F. E. Rovers s.rovers@maastrichtuniversity.nl
This article was submitted to Educational Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
Disclaimer
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.