Edited and reviewed by: Gladys Sunzuma, Bindura University of Science Education, Zimbabwe
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.
In the published article, there was an error. There was a misformulation of a conclusion.
A correction has been made to the
“Concerning Q3, it can be stated that the pupils who followed the Design approach understood the concepts of the ‘actionist principle' and the ‘antagonist principle' better than those of the other approaches, especially concerning the measurement time T2.”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“Concerning Q3, it can be stated that the students who followed the Design approach understood the concepts of the “actionist principle,” “antagonist principle,” and “muscles stretching over joints” better than the participants in the Reconstruction approach. And that the “actionist” concept was better understood compared to the Biology approach. This is particularly evident in the long-term comparison at measurement time T2.”
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.
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.