Which statement is supported by research on individual differences in motor skills?

1. Introduction

The importance of good teachers cannot be overemphasized because early childhood teachers are the first people with whom children establish relationships outside of their families, and they are significant others who spend a large amount of time with children. Due to the increase in double-income families, children are entrusted to childcare centers at younger ages than ever before and stay in childcare centers longer. In Korea, more than 90% of children have attended kindergartens or childcare centers since 2012 [1]. The quality of teacher–child interactions is more strongly associated with child development than other measures of childcare quality [2]. Good teachers create an emotionally warm and supportive environment for children through mutual respect and positive communication and form positive teacher–child relationships by showing sensitivity to the childrens’ emotions.

The quality of teacher–child relationships is conceptualized through types of positive and negative influences [3]. Teacher–child relationships are formed through teacher–child interactions. Three broad domains, emotional support, classroom organization, and instructional support within teacher–child interactions are hypothesized to facilitate children’s developmental progress in the classroom [4]. Children who are emotionally supported perceive themselves and the environment surrounding them positively and act confidently. In a well-organized and well-structured classroom, children feel stable, use their energy appropriately, and participate appropriately in various activities. If a teacher supports children’s learning using an optimal method that suits the interests and developmental level of the children, they can acquire developmentally appropriate concepts, answer questions for themselves, and engage in effective learning. As a result, closer and higher quality teacher–child relationships are related to higher levels of academic, language and social-emotional development for the child [5,6,7,8,9,10]. On the other hand, young children who experienced more conflicts with their teachers had poorer language development and lower overall preacademic competence, higher levels of externalization and internalization problems, and more social adjustment problems [11,12].

The development of the whole child is a very important issue and the ultimate purpose of child education. It is known that boys’ perceptions of their physical exercise competence are better than those of girls, and that among all motor skills, their object control skills are also better than those of girls [13,14]. Children with good physical exercise skills have positive relationships with their peers, and the ability to perform well in sports and games is highly valued by children [15]. Since children play various games using their bodies, physical abilities are an important part of children’s play and peer relationships. Physically competent children have the opportunity to have fun with many friends, and it is possible that their social and emotional abilities may improve naturally. However, children with poor motor skills may begin to perceive themselves as less competent than their typically developing peers [16].

Fundamental movement skills (FMSs) are an indicator of children’s physical exercise ability and are an essential element of children’s physical play. FMSs are the foundation for more advanced movement sequences [17], are the most basic skills used in children’s daily lives and are evaluated qualitatively rather than quantitatively [18]. These skills are often described as ‘a set of processes associated with practice or experience leading to relatively permanent changes in the capability for movement’ [19]. FMSs comprise locomotion skills (i.e., moving the body from one location to another, e.g., running and jumping), object control skills (i.e., carrying or intercepting objects, e.g., throwing and kicking), and stability motor skills (i.e., having control over the body in both stationary and moving positions). In other words, FMSs are the basic component of more complex and advanced motor skills that enable children to continue participating in games, play, and daily life activities [20].

The difference of FMSs between boys and girls reports relatively consistent results; boys are more proficient than girls in object control from childhood [21,22]. This difference is more pronounced in adolescence, and only a few teenage girls are proficient in object control skills [21]. On the other hand, it is known that there is no difference between boys and girls in locomotion skills in childhood, and these results are also consistent with no gender difference in running [22], hopping [23], or jumping [22]. In previous studies, parental confidence in their skills to support their children to be active was only associated with object control skills and not locomotion skills. The authors predicted that children’s object control skills more rely on parental demonstrations and instructions than do locomotion skills [24]. Eventually, the significant others with children may affect the children’s physical development, and in this study, teachers who spend as much time with the children as parents will be considered.

The association between motor skills and psychosocial outcomes appears across the full continuum of motor ability [16]. According to a study that used machines to examine the relationship between the movement behaviors and development of toddlers for 24 h, the overall composition of movement was found to be important for children’s development [25]. Some evidence indicates that physical play, such as roughhousing, facilitates the neuroplasticity of certain brain structures and, as a result, improves cognitive function [26] and behavior [27]. Given that experiments with animals also revealed the relationship between physical play and the social brain [28], these results showed that there is a relationship between the movement behaviors of children and other aspects of development. Children with learning disabilities scored worse on both the locomotion and object control subtests than their typically developing peers [29]. Ultimately, children’s physical competence is expected to be deeply related to their cognitive and social-emotional competences. However, for teachers in the field of “early childhood education”, physical or exercise development has received less attention than cognitive and social-emotional development.

Although considerable research has been devoted to the association between teacher–child relationships and social-emotional competence or cognitive development, less attention has been given to the association with physical development. However, recent studies [16,30] examined the relationship between teacher–child relations and motor development. One result of the two-year survey of infants was the discovery that closeness and conflict in teacher–child relationships in the first year influence the motor skills of toddlers. The authors argued that improving the quality of the teacher–child relationships could promote the development of infants in this respect. With this, young children’s motor skills might be affected by environmental stress, such as the problems aroused from teacher–child and peer relationships [16]. The teacher–child relationship is an important variable that has a decisive influence on child development; however, its associations with motor development and with social-emotional development have not yet been clearly identified, so further research is needed.

The relation between teacher–child relationships and social-emotional competence has been discussed in many studies. Specifically, more positive teacher–child interactions in emotionally supportive environments and classrooms predicts more positive social interactions, a higher level of social competence, and fewer behavioral problems [6,9,31]. Autonomy, one of the social-emotional abilities of children, is discussed as being similar, in a sense, to initiative. Erikson (1975) argued in psychosocial development theory that if a child fails to acquire autonomy, she develops shame and doubt, and if the child fails to acquire initiative, she develops guilt [32]. According to Erickson (1975), between the ages of 3 and 6, children take the initiative to move through their play activities, expand their activity radius, and participate in various physical activities. Children’s autonomy is related to autonomy-supportive parenting and the teaching of significant others, such as parents and teachers [33,34,35,36]. Therefore, it can be assumed that autonomy is a variable that has an important influence on the development of children, including their motor development.

The experience of autonomy is expected to contribute to the child’s sense of being able to direct their own behaviors, to feel competent and accepted, and to develop committed compliance, accepting responsibility for compliance with values [37]. Children with a high level of autonomy can regularly engage and persist in various activities; thus, directly contributing to their self-regulation [38]. This connection is the same as for physical activity. A child’s motivation to participate in physical education is related to her FMSs; specifically, autonomous physical education motivation is related to balance skills [39]. According to a previous study, autonomy support from teachers has been positively and directly associated with students’ self-determined motivation for physical activity [40]. It is reported that autonomy improves the mental processes of the individual and increases satisfaction with activity, such as sports [41]. According to self-determination theory, autonomy is a significant factor that underpins psychological health and effective engagement with the world [42]. Ultimately, autonomy is expected to be one of the variables that influences the motor development of children.

The teacher–child relationship is closely related to support for the child’s autonomy [7,43]. Close teacher–child relationships may provide ample opportunities for children to explore their surroundings, practice their self-help skills, and gain confidence in their ability to try new things with autonomy [44]. Autonomous children who control themselves have a good relationship with teachers, and good teacher–child relationships have a positive effect on children’s development. This relationship can be explained by the bidirectional model. Within a secure relationship, teachers could provide responsive care during daily routines, and toddlers are able to better develop motor skills in indoor and outdoor play [30]. Meanwhile, the teacher–child relationship differs depending on gender. Toddler girls, compared to boys, were more likely to seek contact from their caregivers and stay in close proximity to regulate distress [45]. In contrast, boys were more likely to experience conflicts with their teachers than girls [46]. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the gender of children in discussions related to teacher–child relationships and autonomy.

Korea is a country well known for its high level of education, which has various effects on the development of children. Many Korean children have been exposed to the academic environment since childhood; therefore, there is not much play time and free time for children. According to the research report of the KICCE (Korea Institute of Child Care and Education), 83.6% of five-year-old children were found to receive private education. It was also found that five-year-old children are taking 2.2 kinds of private education [47]. Children who are required to study in their daily lives and who cannot control their daily time are expected to have lower autonomy. A sociocultural atmosphere that does not allow for autonomy in such early stages may result in negative consequences for these children. Actually, Korean children’s need for autonomy were considerably lower than other psychological needs [35]. This study predicted that the autonomy of children would be related to the development of FMSs, and that the association would be mediated by the teacher–child relationship.

This study aims to identify the relation between Korean children’s autonomy and physical development, especially motor development mediated by teacher–child relationships. Based on previous studies, it was considered that there is a gender difference between children’s motor development and teacher–child relationships. This study was conducted to confirm that social-emotional development was also related to the physical development of children, and that the teacher–child relationship was also related to the physical development of children.

2. Methods

3. Results

4. Discussion

This study was conducted to identify the relation between Korean children’s autonomy and motor development mediated by teacher–child relationships. We considered that there is a gender difference among children’s autonomy, motor development, and teacher–child relationships. To this end, data on children’s autonomy and teacher–child relationships were collected through questionnaires. In addition, a professional physical education teacher measured the children’s FMSs. The main results and discussion follow.

First, children’s locomotion skills and object control skills increased with age, and the gender differences varied according to the FMS subfactors. There were no gender differences in the children’s locomotion skills, and boys had higher object control skill scores at all ages. These results are partially consistent with those of previous studies [13,14]. The higher object control skill scores for boys than for girls has also been consistently confirmed in many previous studies of children and adolescents [13,14,59]. Researchers have argued that these results are due to environmental factors. Before adolescence, in early childhood, girls do not have worse physical abilities than boys. In contrast with girls, boys have environmental and emotional motivations to acquire object control skills. Boys participate in more offensive play with balls and focus on achieving goals, while girls display more off-task or spectator-player behaviors [60]. For this reason, the locomotion skills of girls are not different from that of boys, while the object control skills are different from childhood. One possible explanation for this gender difference is probably because support for sports equipment varies by gender, and this support helps develop physical competence [24]. Boys generally play more ball games or physical games using equipment than girls from childhood, and parents provide more equipment for children with better locomotion and object control skills [61]. A boy with more sports equipment will play more physical activities, and this cycle will likely repeat and interact over a long time and increase his competence to manipulate objects.

Second, as shown in the descriptive statistics, there is a big difference in FMSs depending on a child’s age, and the locomotion skills score was higher than that for object control skills [13,14,39]. Object control skills are more difficult than locomotion skills. Object control skills are advanced skills for children that are expected to require more specific muscle development than locomotion skills. In childhood, gross motor skills develop quickly; however, fine motor skills are still underdeveloped. In order to control objects, such as balls, fine motor skills must be used together with gross motor skills, and more sophisticated movements are required. The fact that the locomotion skill score was higher than the object control skill score reflects this development.

Third, according to a result of multi-group analysis, there was no gender difference in locomotion skills. However, in terms of object control skills, the gender difference between boys and girls was significant. Children’s (boys and girls) autonomy influenced locomotion skills through the teacher–child conflict relationship, and girls’ autonomy influenced object control skills through the teacher–child conflict relationship. On the other hand, boys’ autonomy influenced the teacher–child conflict relationship and object control skills, but the mediating effect of the teacher–child conflict relationship was not significant on object control skills. These results imply that the association of children’s social-emotional development and teacher–child relationship to motor development, suggest the possibility that conflict relations with teachers mediate various aspects of child development. These results support the results of previous studies [16,30] that the conflicting teacher–child relationship is negatively related to the physical development of a child. Specifically, even if the child’s autonomy is somewhat low, if the relationship with the teacher is not negative, there is room for the development of the boys’ and girls’ locomotion skills and the girls’ object control skills. On the other hand, it was found that boys’ object control skills were not related to the teacher–child relationship, and in the case of boys, it suggests that personal motivation or environmental factors may affect the development of object control skills rather than the teacher–child relationship. It is worth remembering that motor skill in pre-school aged children is multidimensional, being associated with factors at the child, family and environmental level [24].

Based on these results, we drew the following conclusions. First, this study provides empirical evidence for whole-child development. Physical education classes are organized as independent classes in kindergartens and child care centers in Korea, and most of these classes are conducted by professional physical education teachers. Therefore, there is a slight possibility that homeroom teachers are not skilled in the development of motor skills in children. In this study, physical education teachers measured the motor development, and the social-emotional development was measured by the homeroom teachers. Nevertheless, the fact that children’s motor development is related to social-emotional competence and to the quality of the teacher–child relationships as reported by homeroom teachers is evidence of whole-child development. Early childhood education teachers need to be as interested in the physical development of children as in their social-emotional and cognitive development.

Second, among the FMSs, object control skills were found to be more difficult to achieve than locomotion skills, and more difficult for girls. Object control skills require careful movements of the body. Of the two motor skills, locomotion skills tend to develop naturally with age, unlike object control skills. In other words, it is predicted that more activities or training are needed for children to develop object control skills. In particular, girls need various activities that can help them to develop their object control skills and motivate them to acquire those skills. It is necessary to plan various activities for girls to play with various objects, such as balls, and to devise team games for girls in kindergartens and schools. Mixed games with boys and girls would be okay with locomotion skills; however, in object control skills, playing with boys is likely to dampen girls’ motor activities and motivations. Therefore, if girls’ object control skills are low, it is recommended to separate gender in the early stages of physical activity.

Third, the level of conflict in teacher–child relationships is not only negatively related to children’s autonomy but also negatively related to children’s motor development. Since this study is not longitudinal, it is difficult to predict the effect of autonomy and teacher–child relationships on motor development; however, this should be discussed in bidirectional models of teacher–child relationships [62]. Bidirectional models are based on transactional theory [63], which assumes that children’s developmental outcomes are the product of a combination of an individual child’s characteristics and experiences and aspects of his or her environment (including teacher–child relationships). Children who move and control their bodies at an appropriate level also engage in various activities in the classroom and are not in conflict with their teachers. In addition, nonconflictual relationships with teachers give children a sense of stability and allow them to accept themselves and the environment around them. In addition, such children participate properly in various activities and properly use their energy in appropriate relationships with their teachers.

A low-conflict relationship between teachers and children affects the overall development of children, and the overall development of children also affects the teacher–child relationship [5,7,8,10]. Ultimately, the physical development of children needs to be discussed as much as their social-emotional and cognitive development in terms of their relations with the teacher–child relationship, and more attention and effort needs to be directed towards the physical development of children. Regarding physical development, positive teacher–child relationships were not significantly correlated, while the negative aspect of those relationships was found to be highly correlated. This finding requires further research. Teachers should create a non-conflict teacher–child relationship for the whole development of children. Teacher–child relationship, which are not conflicting for both boys and girls, benefit children not only in their social-emotional development but also in terms of physical development. In addition, it is necessary to provide various physical activities, such as balls and objects to use in outdoor play spaces, during the daily life of kindergartens or daycare centers. In addition, modeling female teachers’ physical activity will have a positive effect on the FMSs of children, especially girls. The demonstration of physical activity behavior by significant others (i.e., parents and physical education teachers) is expected to attract individuals within the same environment to initiate physical activity behaviors [64].

In this study, among the social-emotional development scale (DECA), only child autonomy was related to a child’s FMSs, and the relationship with self-regulation was not significant. As a result, we excluded variable of self-regulation from the analysis. We believe that these results are related to the attributes of the scale and the polymorphism inherent in the concept of self-regulation. In this study, items on the self-regulation scale consisted of questions related to behaviors, such as refraining from expressing emotions and cooperating in relationships with others or in social contexts. Self-regulation is largely divided into its emotional, behavioral, and cognitive aspects, and on this scale, self-regulation might be closest to its emotional dimension. If self-regulation were considered in terms of behavior, such as impulse control or delayed gratification behaviors, it is predicted that the association with FMSs would be significant.

As the introduction revealed, children in large Korean cities (i.e., Seoul) are likely to have lower autonomy compared to children in other countries. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the association between autonomy and physical development of children in other countries. The development of autonomy and FMSs is an important issue for all children around the world. This study provides evidence that children’s autonomy levels and teacher–child relationships are related to FMSs. However, there is a possibility that the autonomy of children may vary depending on the cultural situations, and the teacher–child relationship may also differ between the West and the East countries. In general, the East tends to promote more relatedness rather than autonomy, and the West is likely to have individualistic values that promote more independence [65,66]. Therefore, in cases of Western children with high autonomy, it is necessary to check whether the relationship between teacher–child relationship and FMSs is different from that of Korean children.

5. Conclusions

This study provides empirical evidence for whole-child development. The object control skills were found to be more difficult to achieve than locomotion skills, and more difficult for girls. The level of conflict in teacher–child relationships is not only negatively related to children’s autonomy but also negatively related to children’s motor development. Since the social-emotional development of children has various aspects and can be discussed as various variables, further research is needed on the association between social-emotional development and FMSs. It is a limitation of this study that the teacher–child relationship was measured by a teacher’s questionnaire. In future studies, it is necessary to measure the teacher–child relationship by observing kindergarten classrooms and examining the association with children’s FMSs. This study suggests that the importance of the teacher-child relationship that mediates the association between child autonomy and physical development and the gender of the child should be considered.

Author Contributions

Y.-J.J. designed and executed the study, assisted with the data analyses, and wrote the manuscript; Y.-J.H. collaborated in designing the study, executing the study, and writing and editing the final manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the ethics committee of the Kyungdong university of Korea (1041455-201706-HR-003-02).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all study participants.

Data Availability Statement

This data was collected privately, therefore it was not disclosed.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interest. This manuscript has not been published and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. The authors have no conflict of interest in disclosing it. All of the co-authors have approved this paper.

References

1. Ministry of Education of Republic of Korea & Korea Education Development Institute. 2018 Statistical Yearbook of Education; KEDI: Chungbuk, Korea, 2018. [Google Scholar]
2. Burchinal, M.; Kainz, K.; Cai, Y. How well do our measures of quality predict child outcomes? A meta-analysis and coordinated analysis of data from large-scale studies of early childhood settings. In Quality Measurement in Early Childhood Settings; Zaslow, M., Martinez-Beck, I., Tout, K., Halle, T., Eds.; Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.: Towson, MD, USA, 2011; pp. 11–31. [Google Scholar]
3. Baker, J.A.; Grant, S.; Morlock, L. The teacher-student relationship as a developmental context for children with internalizing or externalizing behavior problems. Sch. Psychol. Q. 2008, 23, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
4. Pianta, R.C.; La Paro, K.M.; Hamre, B.K. The Classroom Assessment Scoring System Manual, Pre-K; Brookes: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
5. Anders, Y.; Rossbach, H.G.; Weinert, S.; Ebert, S.; Kuger, S.; Lehrl, S.; Von Maurice, J. Home and preschool learning environments and their relations to the development of early numeracy skills. Early Child. Res. Q. 2012, 27, 231–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
6. Downer, J.; Sabol, T.J.; Hamre, B. Teacher–child interactions in the classroom: Toward a theory of within-and cross-domain links to children2019s developmental outcomes. Early Educ. Dev. 2010, 21, 699–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
7. Garner, P.W.; Mahatmya, D. Affective social competence and teacher–child relationship quality: Race/ethnicity and family income level as moderators. Soc. Dev. 2015, 24, 678–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
8. Pakarinen, E.; Lerkkanen, M.K.; Viljaranta, J.; von Suchodoletz, A. Investigating Bidirectional Links Between the Quality of Teacher–Child Relationships and Children’s Interest and Pre-Academic Skills in Literacy and Math. Child Dev. 2021, 92, 388–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
9. Mashburn, A.J.; Pianta, R.C.; Hamre, B.K.; Downer, J.T.; Barbarin, O.; Bryant, D.; Burchinal, M.; Early, D.M.; Howes, C. Measures of classroom quality in prekindergarten and children’s development of academic, language, and social skills. Child Dev. 2008, 79, 732–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
10. Melhuish, E.; Quinn, L.; Sylva, K.; Sammons, P.; Siraj-Blatchford, I.; Taggart, B. Pre-School Experience and Key Stage 2 Performance in ENGLISH and Mathematics; Department of Education: Bangor, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
11. White, K.M. Associations between teacher–child relationships and children2019s writing in kindergarten and first grade. Early Child. Res. Q. 2013, 28, 166–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
12. Zhang, X.; Sun, J. The reciprocal relations between teachers’ perceptions of children2019s behavior problems and teacher–child relationships in the first preschool year. J. Genet. Psychol. 2011, 172, 176–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
13. Kim, C.I.; Lee, K.Y. The relationship between fundamental movement skills and body mass index in Korean preschool children. Eur. Early Child. Educ. Res. J. 2016, 24, 928–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
14. Melvin Chung, H.L.; Cheah, W.L.; Hazmi, H. Fundamental motor skill among preschool children in rural of Kuching, Sarawak. Early Child Dev. Care 2021, 191, 1526–1538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
15. Livesey, D.; Lum Mow, M.; Toshack, T.; Zheng, Y. The relationship between motor performance and peer relations in 9- to 12-year-old children. Child Care Health Dev. 2011, 37, 581–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Mancini, V.O.; Rigoli, D.; Cairney, J.; Roberts, L.D.; Piek, J.P. The elaborated environmental stress hypothesis as a framework for understanding the association between motor skills and internalizing problems: A mini-review. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Kalaja, S.; Jaakkola, T.; Watt, A.; Liukkonen, J.; Ommundsen, Y. The Associations between Seventh Grade Finnish Students’ Motivational Climate, Perceived Competence, Self-Determined Motivation, and Fundamental Movement Skills. Eur. Phys. Educ. Rev. 2009, 15, 315–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
18. Payne, V.G.; Isaacs, L.D. Human Motor Development: A Lifespan Approach, 7th ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
19. Schmidt, R.A.; Lee, T.D. Motor Control and Learning: A Behavioral Emphasis, 5th ed.; Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
20. Goodway, J.D.; Ozmun, J.C.; Gallahue, D.L. Understanding Motor Development: Infants, Children, Adolescents, Adults; Jones & Bartlett Learning: Burlington, MA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
21. Booth, M.; Okely, A.D.; Denney-Wilson, E.; Hardy, L.; Yang, B.; Dobbins, T. NSW Schools Physical Activity and Nutrition Survey (SPANS); NSW Department of Health: Sydney, Australia, 2006. [Google Scholar]
22. Hume, C.; Okely, A.; Bagley, S.; Telford, A.; Booth, M.; Crawford, D.; Salmon, J. Does weight status influence associations between children2019s fundamental movement skills and physical activity? Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 2008, 79, 158–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. van Beurden, E.; Zask, A.; Barnett, L.M.; Dietrich, U.C. Fundamental movement skills—How do primary school children perform? The ‘Move it Groove it’program in rural Australia. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2002, 5, 244–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
24. Barnett, L.; Hinkley, T.; Okely, A.D.; Salmon, J. Child, family and environmental correlates of children2019s motor skill proficiency. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2013, 16, 332–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
25. Kuzik, N.; Naylor, P.J.; Spence, J.C.; Carson, V. Movement behaviors and physical, cognitive, and social-emotional development in preschool-aged children: Cross-sectional associations using compositional analyses. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0237945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
26. Hötting, K.; Röder, B. Beneficial effects of physical exercise on neuroplasticity and cognition. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2013, 37, 2243–2257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
27. Panksepp, J.; Scott, E.L. Reflections on rough and tumble play, social development, and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorders. In Physical Activity across the Lifespan; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 23–40. [Google Scholar]
28. Pellis, S.M.; Pellis, V.C. Rough-and-tumble play and the development of the social brain. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2007, 16, 95–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
29. Westendorp, M.; Hartman, E.; Houwen, S.; Smith, J.; Visscher, C. The relationship between gross motor skills and academic achievement in children with learning disabilities. Res. Dev. Disabil. 2011, 32, 2773–2779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
30. Liu, T.; Zhang, X.; Zhao, K.; Chan, W.L. Teacher–child relationship quality and Chinese toddlers’ developmental functioning: A cross-lagged modelling approach. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2020, 116, 105192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
31. Cadima, J.; Leal, T.; Burchinal, M. The quality of teacher–student interactions: Associations with first graders’ academic and behavioral outcomes. J. Sch. Psychol. 2010, 48, 457–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Erikson, E.H. Life History and the Historical Movement; Norton: New York, NY, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
33. Aunola, K.; Viljaranta, J.; Lehtinen, E.; Nurmi, J.-E. The role of maternal support of competence, autonomy and relatedness in children2019s interests and mastery orientation. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2013, 25, 171–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
34. Cleveland, E.S.; Morris, A. Autonomy support and structure enhance children2019s memory and motivation to reminisce: A parental training study. J. Cogn. Dev. 2014, 15, 414–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
35. Jang, Y. The Effects of Mothers’ and Grandparents’ Autonomy-Supportive /Autonomy-Control Parenting on Children’s Basic Psychological Needs. Int. J. Early Child. Educ. 2020, 26, 39–54. [Google Scholar]
36. Zee, M.; Koomen, H. Engaging children in the upper elementary grades: Unique contributions of teacher self-efficacy, autonomy support, and student-teacher relationships. J. Res. Child. Educ. 2020, 34, 477–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
37. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2000, 25, 54–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
38. Davis, E.A. Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. J. Learn. Sci. 2003, 12, 91–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
39. Van Aart, I.; Hartman, E.; Elferink-Gemser, M.; Mombarg, R.; Visscher, C. Relations among basic psychological needs, PE-motivation and fundamental movement skills in 9–12-year-old boys and girls in Physical Education. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagog. 2017, 22, 15–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
40. Hagger, M.; Chatzisarantis, N.L.; Hein, V.; Soos, I.; Karsai, I.; Lintunen, T.; Leemans, S. Teacher, peer and parent autonomy support in physical education and leisure-time physical activity: A trans-contextual model of motivation in four nations. Psychol. Health 2009, 24, 689–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
41. Ospankulov, Y.E.; Nurgaliyeva, S.; Kunai, S.; Baigaliev, A.M.; Kaldyhanovna, K.R. Using physical education lessons to develop the autonomy of primary school children. Cypriot J. Educ. Sci. 2022, 17, 601–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
42. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Can. Psychol./Psychol. Can. 2008, 49, 182–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
43. Cadima, J.; Barros, S.; Ferreira, T.; Serra-Lemos, M.; Leal, T.; Verschueren, K. Bidirectional associations between vocabulary and self-regulation in preschool and their interplay with teacher–child closeness and autonomy support. Early Child. Res. Q. 2019, 46, 75–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
44. Côté-Lecaldare, M.; Joussemet, M.; Dufour, S. How to support toddlers’ autonomy: A qualitative study with child care educators. Early Educ. Dev. 2016, 27, 822–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
45. Buss, K.A.; Brooker, R.J.; Leuty, M. Girls most of the time, boys some of the time: Gender differences in toddlers2019 use of maternal proximity and comfort seeking. Infancy 2008, 13, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
46. Koepke, M.F.; Harkins, D.A. Conflict in the classroom: Gender differences in the teacher–child relationship. Early Educ. Dev. 2008, 19, 843–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
47. Kim, E.Y.; Choi, H.M.; Choi, J.E.; Jang, M.K. Study on the Current Status and Improvement of Private Education for Young Children II: Focused on Two, Five-Year-Old Children; (Report No. 2016-13); Korea Institute of Child Care and Education: Seoul, Korea, 2016; Available online: http://repo.kicce.re.kr/handle/2019.oak/795 (accessed on 14 August 2022).
48. Pianta, R.C. Student–Teacher Relationship Scale: Professional Manual; Psychological Assessment Resources: Lutz, FL, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
49. LeBuffe, P.A.; Naglieri, J.A. The Devereux Early Childhood Assessment; Kaplan Press Publishing: Lewisville, NC, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
50. Bulotsky-Shearer, R.J.; Fernandez, V.A.; Rainelli, S. The validity of the Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for culturally and linguistically diverse Head Start children. Early Child. Res. Q. 2013, 28, 794–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
51. Carlson, J.S.; Voris, D.S. One-year stability of the Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for preschoolers. J. Psychoeduc. Assess. 2018, 36, 829–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
52. Sikorska, I.; Adamczyk-Banach, M.; Polak, M. Early screening for protective and risk factors-Polish adaptation of the Devereux Early Childhood Assessment. Psychol. Sch. 2021, 58, 1345–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
53. Englert, C. The self-regulation of human performance: A critical discussion and future directions for self-control research. Perform. Enhanc. Health 2019, 6, 156–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
54. Jang, Y.; Hong, Y.J. The relationship between children’s temperament and fundamental movement skills mediated by autonomy and self-regulation. Early Child Dev. Care 2022, 192, 1217–1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
55. Mamayek, C.; Paternoster, R.; Loughran, T.A. Self-control as self-regulation: A return to control theory. Deviant Behav. 2017, 38, 895–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
56. Ulrich, D.A. The Test of Gross Motor Development, 2nd ed.; Pro-Ed., Inc.: Austin, TX, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
57. Chow, B.C.; Chan, L. Gross motor skills of Hong Kong preschool children. Asian J. Phys. Educ. Recreat. 2011, 17, 71–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
58. Kim, C.I.; Han, D.W.; Park, I.H. Reliability and validity of the test of gross motor development-II in Korean preschool children: Applying AHP. Res. Dev. Disabil. 2014, 35, 800–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59. O2019Brien, W.; Issartel, J.; Belton, S. Evidence for the efficacy of the youth-physical activity towards health (Y-PATH) intervention. Adv. Phys. Educ. 2013, 3, 145–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
60. Gutierrez, D.; Garcia-Lopez, L.M. Gender differences in game behavior in invasion games. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagog. 2012, 17, 289–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
61. Cools, W.; De Martelaer, K.; Vandaele, B.; Samaey, C.; Andries, C. Fundamental movement skill development of four to six year-old pre-school children in Flanders. In Contemporary Sport, Leisure and Ergonomics; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2009; Volume 335. [Google Scholar]
62. Hughes, J.N.; Luo, W.; Kwok, O.M.; Loyd, L.K. Teacher-student support, effortful engagement, and achievement: A 3-year longitudinal study. J. Educ. Psychol. 2008, 100, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
63. Cappella, E.; Aber, J.L.; Kim, H.Y.; Gitomer, D.H.; Bell, C.A. Teaching beyond achievement tests: Perspectives from developmental and education science. In Handbook of Research on Teaching; AERA: Washington, DC, USA, 2016; Volume 5, pp. 249–347. [Google Scholar]
64. McDavid, L.; Cox, A.E.; Amorose, A.J. The relative roles of physical education teachers and parents in adolescents’ leisure-time physical activity motivation and behavior. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2012, 13, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
65. Chao, R.K. Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Dev. 1994, 65, 1111–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
66. Su, S.; McElwain, A.; Lin, X. Parenting Practices and Emerging Adult Well-Being in the United States and China. J. Comp. Fam. Stud. 2022, 53, 5–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Figure 1. Locomotion skills of boys and girls (no gender difference). + p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

Figure 1. Locomotion skills of boys and girls (no gender difference). + p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

Figure 2. Object control skills of boys. *** p < 0.001.

Figure 2. Object control skills of boys. *** p < 0.001.

Figure 3. Object control skills of girls. * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.

Figure 3. Object control skills of girls. * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.

Table 1. FMS score by age and gender (n = 292).

Table 1. FMS score by age and gender (n = 292).

Table 2. Correlation of main variables.

Table 2. Correlation of main variables.

Table 3. Comparison of differences with base model.

Table 3. Comparison of differences with base model.