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.