Implications and limitations
While the present study delved into the moderating effects of gender and
grade in children’s development, it’s crucial to acknowledge certain
limitations when extrapolating these findings to broader child
development research. Firstly, this study is cross-sectional, and
therefore, it cannot establish the causality or direction of effects
(Nurmi, 2012). For example, our research explored the moderating role of
gender in predicting SR impact on TCR, but it is possible that this
relationship operates in the opposite direction, with gender moderating
SR impact on TCR. In the future, longitudinal studies could be employed
to investigate the dynamic moderating roles of gender and age in
children’s development. Second, the reliance on teachers’ self-reports
of TCR may introduce potential biases (Vitiello et al., 2022) and a
substantial portion of the variance in teachers’ reports of TCR can be
attributed to inter-teacher differences rather than variations between
individual children (Mashburn et al., 2006). This implies that different
children might exhibit varying levels of TCR, even if teachers reported
the same scores. Future research endeavors could consider adopting a
multilevel modeling approach to accounting for the influence of teacher
differences on TCR. Third, the results were obtained from a Chinese
sample, and the applicability to other countries may be limited. In
different cultural contexts, the gender role differentiation may be more
pronounced (Spilt et al., 2012). Thus, cross-cultural replications are
imperative to further elucidate potential differences between gender and
grade in child development.
Despite these limitations, our findings contribute further empirical
evidence from the perspective of gender and grade in the context of
Chinese preschool TCR, SR, SE, and academic achievement. The varying
significance in path coefficients across genders and grades suggest
several areas for future research. Firstly, our study offers further
support for the role of TCR in child development, emphasizing their risk
or protective effects. It also highlights the predictive influence of SR
and SE on academic achievement. Furthermore, our research explores the
moderating role of gender and age in the relationships between TCR, SR,
and SE. Future research should expand upon this to investigate the
differential impacts of gender and age on child developmental
relationships. This may encompass the examination of how gender and age
affect the success or failure of interventions aimed at enhancing TCR,
SR and SE. Additionally, exploring variations in interactions between
variables across different cultural backgrounds can ensure the
generalization of results. Tracking child development longitudinally can
help reveal the dynamic mechanisms by which TCR, SR, SE, and academic
achievement change over time.
In addition, our results reveal that SR is a robust predictor of
mathematics and vocabulary. However, we have yet to explore whether SR
consistently exhibits strong predictive effects on other performance in
other areas (e.g., science and literacy) across different genders and
ages. It is imperative to delve into the mechanisms underlying the
relationship between SR and academic achievement. This will contribute
to a better understanding of the complexity of SR development and help
determine whether SR should be a priority in ECE. Lastly, the study
concludes that the relationships between children’s abilities may be
influenced by various factors, including the relationships that teachers
establish with children and the developmental skills of children. From a
practical perspective, we encourage teachers to prioritize positive
interactions with children, creating a gender-inclusive classroom
atmosphere and nurturing positive relationships with young children.
Moreover, educators should provide activities aimed at improving
children’s SR and SE during K1. This approach can maximize the
cumulative effects of closeness TCR, SR, and SE, ultimately enhancing
their impact on academic achievement.