Next Article in Journal
Effects of Modified Invasion Games on Motor Competence and Self-Assessed Physical Condition in Elementary School Students in the Physical Education Classroom
Previous Article in Journal
Understanding Experiences of Youth with Long COVID: A Qualitative Approach
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Children
Volume 11
Issue 3
10.3390/children11030336
children-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Relationships between Motor Skills and Academic Achievement in School-Aged Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review

by
Lijing Wang
and
Lijuan Wang
*
School of Physical Education, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai 200438, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Children 2024, 11(3), 336; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/children11030336
Submission received: 23 January 2024 / Revised: 29 February 2024 / Accepted: 29 February 2024 / Published: 12 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Global Pediatric Health)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Purpose: This review systematically summarizes the studies of the relationship between primary-to-secondary school students’ motor skills and academic achievement, and analyzes the relationship between gross and fine motor skills and performance in different subjects. Method: Five electronic databases, Web Of Science, PubMed, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, and Academic Search Premier, were searched in March 2023. Semi-quantitative assessment methods were used to analyze the results of the included studies. Results: Seventy-eight articles were included in this systematic review. The semi-quantitative assessment results showed that gross (+, 65.0/62.5%) and fine motor skills (+, 83.3/80%) were positively correlated with overall performance and language performance, with ≥60% of the associations in the same direction. For different subjects, fine motor skills were positively correlated with students’ mathematics (+, 75.0%), reading (+, 72.7%), writing (+, 66.7%), and spelling (+, 60.0%) scores. However, the association between gross motor skills and students’ mathematics achievement (?, 52.8%), reading (?, 53.8%), and spelling (?, 50.0%) is uncertain, with <60% of the associations in the same direction. Conclusions: It is wise to direct our gaze toward the evolution of motor skills among students, especially primary school students. Different motor skill intervention modes should be selected in a targeted manner according to different subject achievements.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Cognitive changes occurring in childhood and adolescence are critical to acquire the capability of learning and executing motor skills. The earlier cognitive theory suggested that motor and cognitive skills have been regarded as completely different processes which develop independently and involve diverse territories within the brain [1]. With the development of the cognitive psychology theory and the advancement of neuroscientific technical means, significant breakthroughs have been achieved in the study of motor skills and cognitive ability and the academic performance of children and adolescents, attracting widespread attention within the academic community [2].
According to the “embodied cognition” model presented by Piaget [3], the body and brain function as a single, interconnected unit within the “brain–body” system, with their operations being mutually dependent and closely interwoven [4,5]. Specifically, knowledge is constructed through motor behaviors which lead to the creation of mental representations [3] and promote the development of complex intellectual reasoning abilities [6]. Neuroscientific and psychological evidence suggests that motor skills allow students to understand better and develop more advanced cognitive abilities, such as reasoning, planning, and judgment, promoting academic performance [7,8]. Investigating the relationship between motor skills and cognitive function holds significance in attaining a thorough comprehension of changes occurring in children and adolescents.
The theory of cognitive load provides a new perspective. The theory postulates that the processing power for a task is limited [9]. The cognitive load theory posits that children possessing robust motor skills within the classroom environment are not compelled to allocate attentional focus, resources, or energetic exertion toward behavioral endeavors [10]. Children endowed with robust attentional stability, self-regulation, and operational memory may engage effortlessly in novel and intricate educational tasks [11]. These explanations emphasize the significance of examining the link between motor skills and academic achievements (AAs), as well as determining whether this association is limited to specific types of skills.
Motor skills encompass the learned sequences of movements that are combined to perform a task smoothly and efficiently [12]. In addition to movement, motor skills include the cognitive processes that produce movement [13]. Motor skills and cognitive abilities are mutually dependent, as they share common neural pathways within the brain. Functional neuroimaging has uncovered the profound activation of the neocerebellum and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex during the execution of numerous motor and cognitive undertakings [14,15]. Cognitive abilities exhibit a strong correlation with AA [16,17].
Motor skills are classified as gross motor skills (GMSs) and fine motor skills (FMSs). GMSs coordinate large muscle groups for the execution of basic movements such as sitting, crawling, walking, and running [18]. Fine motor skills (FMSs) involve coordinating small muscle movements for grasping, drawing, writing, and playing an instrument [11]. Multiple investigations have delved into the association between GMSs, FMSs, and AAs among children, yielding inconsistent results [19,20,21]. Some studies have indicated a positive correlation between GMSs [22,23,24] and FMSs [25,26,27], and AAs. Conversely, other research revealed no substantial linkage between these motor skills and students’ AAs [28,29,30]. By integrating the findings from these studies, we can comprehensively and objectively evaluate the associations between the two motor skill types and AAs among children.
Macdonald and collaborators’ study, which reviewed 55 studies from 2000 to 2018, examined the relationship between motor proficiency and mathematics and reading achievement in children aged 22 months to 18 years [31]. Their findings demonstrated a strong and positive correlation between fine motor integration, as well as an overall fine motor score, and performance in mathematics and reading (it was only found in some studies that looked at fine motor integration, while other studies looked at overall fine motor coordination). The research also showed a clear and positive association between speed, agility, coordination of the upper limbs, and the overall gross motor score on one hand, and mathematical and reading proficiency on the other. However, numerous works have explored the relationships between motor skills and AAs since 2018. These studies are important to further summarize the relationship between the two variables, and a comprehensive summation and analysis of these studies have yet to be undertaken. Moreover, studies that focused on the relationship between motor skills and different subjects, including language, writing, science, spelling, and overall academic achievement among children and adolescents, were not reviewed. Thus, to better understand the relationship between motor skills and AA, a more extensive review to summarize the achievement of different subjects is necessary. This review focused on school students’ academics (i.e., from primary to high school students). It aimed to (1) systematically summarize the studies on the relationships between school students’ motor skills and AA before 2023, and (2) quantify the association between motor skills and achievement in different subjects. This review can contribute to the development of interventions to increase motor skill participation and improve AA for school-aged students.

2. Methods

This review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Guideline (PRISMA) [32]. The protocol for this systematic review is registered on the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols database on 9 February 2024 (INPLASY202420043), and is available in full at inplasy.com (https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.37766/inplasy2024.2.0043, 9 February 2024).

2.1. Search Strategy

Five electronic databases, Web Of Science, PubMed, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, and Academic Search Premier, were searched in March 2023. The search terms were based on the combination of three main areas: (1) student* OR youth* OR teenage* OR child* OR juvenile* OR adolescent*; (2) motor skill* OR motor competence OR motor ability* OR motor development OR motor coordination OR gross motor skill* OR fine motor skill*; and (3) academic achievement OR academic performance OR academic grades OR scholastic achievement.

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) studies examining the associations between motor skills and AA were included, (2) studies that assessed gross or fine motor skills separately were included, (3) the participants were typically developing primary to high school students, (4) studies published in peer-reviewed journals in English until March 2023, and (5) quantitative studies.
The exclusion criteria were as follows:(1) studies focusing other topics, (2) studies utilizing measurement batteries that incorporate fine motor skills as a component of the overall score, (3) people with disabilities, and people with diseases or disorders that affect or limit their physical activity, such as developmental coordination disorder (DCD) or autism spectrum disorder (ASD), (4) unpublished dissertations, conference proceedings, literature review, and comments were excluded, and (5) qualitative studies, case reports, and expert opinions were disregarded. The two authors assessed the identified studies independently based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The second author judged on the disagreement.

2.3. Quality Assessment

The researchers used the adapted McMaster Critical Review Form Quantitative Studies to determine the methodological quality [33]. The form was selected due to its demonstration of a strong inter-rater agreement rate, ranging from 75 to 86% [34]. It encompasses 16 items, addressing various aspects of the study such as its intent, context, project, sampling, measurements, data analysis techniques, conclusions, and implications, as well as limitations. The researchers assigned scores to all items based on the fulfillment of specific criteria, awarding ‘yes’ a score of 1 and ‘no’ a score of 0. Two reviewers independently assessed all studies. The final score for each study was calculated by summing the total scores of the relevant items and dividing it by the total scores. The second author resolved any uncertainty and disagreement. Scores falling within the ranges of less than or equal to 50%, between 51 and 75%, and greater than 75% were categorized as indicating low, good, and excellent quality, respectively.

2.4. Data Extraction and Synthesis

The first author performed the data extraction, and the second author performed the final validation. An overview of the demographic characteristics of the participants across these studies were conducted and included the type of research, participant characteristics, motor skill measurement methods, and methodological quality. The participants were divided into four groups. The methodological quality was graded according to three levels: high, moderate, and low (Table 1).

2.5. Coding of Analysis

A combined qualitative–quantitative analysis was employed to gauge the congruency among distinct relationship varieties [35]. This assessment is presented in the report with descriptive results and also provides additional objective evidence [36]. The identified association for every result in each study was marked as positive or negative. The code “0” indicates a non-significant association between motor skills and different subject achievement. The codes “+” and “−” indicate whether the association between motor skills and various subject achievement is positive or negative, respectively. When findings were reported separately according to sex, these were noted as “male” or “female”. Subsequently, we delved deeper into coding these relationships by meticulously analyzing the studies that underpin the correlations. Relationships observed only once remained unelaborated in the text and were subsequently coded as “No Description (ND)” [12]. When variables were encountered two or more times, we strictly followed the method framework established by Sallis and carried out systematic sorting [35]: (1) “+” or “−”: positive or negative correlation when the variable appeared in two or more studies, with ≥60% of the associations in the same direction; (2) “?”: inconsistent or uncertain correlation, with 34–59% of the associations in the same direction; (3) “0”: no association, with 0–33% of the associations in the same direction.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for studies used in the systematic review.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for studies used in the systematic review.
Descriptionn (%)
Type of research
Longitudinal studies35 (44.9)
Cross-sectional studies31 (39.7)
Experimental studies12 (15.4)
Sample size
<100 17 (21.8)
100–24922 (28.2)
250–50016 (20.5)
>50023 (29.5)
Motor skill assessment
MABC/MABC-2 [37,38]12 (15.4)
BOT-2 [39]7 (9.0)
VMI [40]7 (9.0)
KTK [41]5 (6.4)
Early Screening Inventory [42]4 (5.1)
Methodological quality
Excellent55 (70.5)
Good18 (23.1)
Low5 (6.4)
Note: MABC/MABC-2: Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2; BOT-2: Bruininks–Oseretsky Test for Motor Proficiency; VMI: Visual Motor Integration test; KTK: Körperkoordinationtest für Kinder. Quality evaluation details are listed in Supplementary Material.

3. Results

3.1. Search Results

The four-phase methodology used to identify, evaluate, and ultimately choose studies for this extensive review is concisely summarized in the PRISMA diagram [32] (Figure 1). The initial search identified 1564 studies. Duplicates among the studies were removed upon exporting them to the EndNote X2 software. Subsequently, the screening of the remaining 841 articles was conducted by examining their title and abstracts, leading to the exclusion of 673 studies. The remaining 168 studies were re-screened by reading the full text; 73 were initially identified. Five relevant studies were added by reading the literature and references. The ultimate count of studies incorporated into the systematic review stood at 78 (see Figure 1).

3.2. Methodological Quality

Out of the 78 studies included in the review, 55 (70.5%) were deemed to have excellent methodological quality, 18 (23.1%) were categorized as good quality, while 5 studies fell into the low-quality category. Notably, the weakest aspect among the included studies pertained to sampling techniques and procedures.

3.3. Study Characteristics

The studies encompassed in this review were published between the years 2001 and 2022. Most of these studies were longitudinal studies (n = 35, 44.9%), and the remaining were cross-sectional (n = 31, 39.7%) and experimental studies (n = 12, 15.4%). The total samples in each study included in the review ranged from 13 to 34,491. Most studies (n = 55, 70.5%) had <500 samples. The research focused on primary to high school students (aged 4–17), and most studies (n = 72, 92.3%) focused on primary students. Motor skills were assessed by using a range of instruments such as the Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2 (MABC/MABC-2) (n = 12, 15.4%), Bruininks–Oseretsky Test for Motor Proficiency (BOT-2) (n = 7, 9.0%), the visual motor integration test (VMI) (n = 7, 9.0%), Körperkoordinationtest für Kinder (KTK) (n = 5, 6.4%), Early Screening Inventory (n = 4, 5.1%), and other Early Screening Tools (Table 1).

3.4. Relationships between GMSs and AA

Table 2 presents findings regarding the association between GMSs/FMSs and AA among students. A cumulative total of 42 studies delved into the association between gross motor skills and academic performance. The relationships between GMSs and overall performance (i.e., composite scores and GPA) and AA in mathematics, reading, writing, spelling, and language were studied twice or more. GMSs are consistently and positively related to the overall academic and language performance, with 65.0% and 62.5% of the studies supporting this view. GMSs were positively associated with mathematics, reading, and spelling performance, with only 52.8%, 53.8%, and 50% (less than 60%) of the studies supporting this view, thus making the association uncertain. No correlation was found between GMSs and students’ writing skills because only 28.6% of the studies supported the relationship.

3.5. Relationships between FMSs and AA

A total of 57 studies examined the relationship between FMSs and AA. The relationships between FMSs and overall performance and AA in mathematics, reading, writing, spelling and language were studied twice or more. FMSs demonstrate a consistent and positive correlation with overall academic achievement and mathematics, reading, writing, spelling and language performance, with 83.3%, 75.0%, 72.7%, 66.7%, 60.0%, and 80.0% of the studies supporting it, respectively.

4. Discussion

This review offers a comprehensive and systematic compilation of studies examining the relationship between motor skills and AA among school-aged students. Findings showed that GMSs and FMSs are consistently and positively related to the overall academic performance.
The “embodied cognition” model may explain why GMSs and FMSs are positively associated with the overall AA. Moreover, the results showed that GMSs and FMSs are consistently and positively associated with students’ language performance. Developing motor skills and sensorimotor experience can be conductive to acquire some linguistic categories, including verbs or spatial vocabulary (e.g., locative adverbs and prepositions, and verbs indicating movements in a direction) [109]. The Piagetian constructivism perspective is that children learn and create by actively interacting with their environment through gross motor (e.g., walking) and fine motor (e.g., grasping) activities [110]. Their sensorimotor experiences can also build their vocabulary and linguistic skills. Many neuroimaging studies have shown that brain activations take place in the motor and sensory cortices that correspond to the communicated significance when language is processed [111]. A handful of experimental studies have corroborated that the controlled practice of motor skills, both gross and fine, during the language acquisition process facilitates the transformation of abstract information into tangible and concrete concepts, ultimately leading to optimal learning outcomes [6,112,113].
Reading, spelling, and writing are different subjects related to FMS. Reading requires FMSs controlling eye movement for word tracking. Speaking and spelling require FMSs that control the production of sound and written content. The process of writing work demands precision in hand movements and the synchronization of the hand and eye [76]. Fine motor writing skills play an important role in creating student learning conditions. In their review of studies examining embodiment across various cognitive domains, Kiefer and Trump demonstrate that the adoption of writing techniques can influence reading performance, as they stimulate motor programs and evoke sensory experiences linked to writing while engaging in the reading task [114]. Therefore, individuals who engage in handwriting exhibit superior letter recognition during reading tests compared to those who rely on typewriting. This observation underscores the argument that deliberate sensory–motor experiences contribute to the development of robust sensory–motor memory traces, subsequently bolstering the efficiency of learning.
Some research shows that students can learn to spell words more accurately through handwriting [97,115,116]. First, handwriting tasks allow children to establish intrinsic structures for the symbolic systems underlying successful academic performance, serving as the fundamental building blocks for various academic disciplines [100]. Second, research indicates that when students are able to utilize handwriting to record their thoughts and ideas effortlessly, they conserve cognitive resources, enabling them to produce more intricate compositions [117,118]. Handwriting fluency enables students to focus all their energy on creating content, without having to split their attention between content development and text production [116].
The review also found that FMSs can improve mathematics performance, consistent with the results summarized by Macdonald (2018) [31]. In this review, most studies (92%) focused on Grades 1 to 6 students, and only one focuses on secondary school students. The correlation between FMSs and mathematics performance is reflected mainly during primary schooling. Understanding mathematics is grounded in our bodily interactions and experiences with the physical world [119]. Hill [120] (2010) contended that the acquisition of motor skills, which encompasses the refinement of physical control, is intricately linked to cognitive performance and academic achievement. This places an emphasis on the significance of skills in the realm of educational pursuits. Primary school mathematics classes use hands to operate toys, cards, and other methods to help students master the basic concepts of numbers or some symbols (e.g., one-to-one correspondence, counting, sorting) to cultivate and improve their computing ability [88]. The “neurological” perspective suggests a close proximity between the brain regions responsible for finger movement and those underlying arithmetical proficiency [121,122]. Consequently, practicing FMSs is believed to stimulate these brain regions, subsequently enhancing mathematical performance.
Furthermore, numerous physical games that demand motor skills possess the capability to foster and enhance the development of mathematical abilities and concepts, encompassing spatial awareness, classification, counting or sorting, as well as directional and distance comprehension. Early motor skill proficiency has been found to influence the subsequent development of cognitive skills, and children with better motor development tend to exhibit better cognitive and academic outcomes in adolescence [48,123].
Although a preliminary discussion of the relationship between GMSs and mathematics, reading, and spelling performance was conducted, the research results are uncertain, and such a relationship needs to be further explored and clarified.

5. Limitations and Implications for Future Research

This research, however, is not without its limitations. First, only studies published in English were considered, potentially excluding some pertinent research. Second, due to the heterogeneity among studies, a meta-analysis was not feasible. Moreover, a limited number of studies have accounted for the potential impact of additional variables, including demographic characteristics, socioeconomic status, body mass index, and ethnic background. Therefore, we only examined the relationship between motor skills and AA.
Despite the limitations, the present review’s findings offer valuable insights into potential future research directions and practical applications. First, researchers should consider using standardized instruments to assess motor skills and academic performance to reduce heterogeneity between studies and more accurately compare the results of different studies. Second, further attention should be given to the scores of the subjects not supported by sufficient evidence (such as history and science) and subjects that do not draw definite conclusions due to contradictory evidence (such as reading), and the relationship between motor skills and these subjects clarified. Third, research in the future should pay more attention to mediating variables and exploring more mediating variables from physiology and cognitive psychology perspectives to understand the internal mechanism of the motor skills affecting academic performance, this will be fraught with challenges. Finally, the relationship between motor skills and academic achievement may not apply to populations (e.g., migrants and immigrants, children from high socioeconomic status backgrounds, children with low IQs, etc.). Hence, it is imperative to delve deeper into the disparities in the association between motor skills and AA among students of different characteristics, including gender, age, intelligence level and family background, which must be thoroughly studied.
The research findings offer valuable insights for educational practitioners. Understanding the importance of motor skills in children is crucial for educators, as they play a pivotal role in enhancing academic performance and fostering progress in various domains. PE teachers should give due diligence to the development of motor skills and actively develop some motor skill games suitable for different ages so as to promote physical progress and AA. Cognitive and educational psychologists need to explore the relationships and mechanisms between different skills and AA more actively in order to facilitate innovation within school welfare policy formulation and teaching methods.

6. Conclusions

To sum up, using a semi-quantitative evaluation of the research results, this systematic review revealed a positive correlation between motor skills and certain subdomains of AA. There is some experimental research suggesting that implementing motor skill interventions with school settings may have a positive impact on AA, especially in math and reading.
Hence, future interventions should focus on promoting motor skills, which is one of the most comprehensive and effective approaches to promoting AA. Public policies may need to be changed to systematically provide incentives and guidance for improving school sports skills. At the same time, more research is required that employs cutting-edge technology, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and EEG (electroencephalogram), to elucidate the biological underpinnings that underlie the observed impact on cognitive faculties and AA. Furthermore, prolonged randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are imperative to establish a causal link between enhanced motor proficiency and the improvement in academic outcomes.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://0-www-mdpi-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/article/10.3390/children11030336/s1, Table S1: Key data extracted from studies examining the relationship between motor skills and academic performance in school-aged children and adolescents; Table S2: Results of the study quality evaluation using the adapted McMaster Critical Review Form for Quantitative Studies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.W. (Lijing Wang) and L.W. (Lijuan Wang); methodology, L.W. (Lijing Wang) and L.W. (Lijuan Wang); validation, L.W. (Lijuan Wang); formal analysis, L.W. (Lijing Wang); data curation, L.W. (Lijing Wang); writing—original draft preparation, L.W. (Lijing Wang); writing—review and editing, L.W. (Lijuan Wang); supervision, L.W. (Lijuan Wang); project administration, L.W. (Lijuan Wang). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in Supplementary Materials.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the members (including Yulan Zhou, Bingnan Wang, Wenhong Xu, Huan Chen, and Guo Liang) of the research group and Wang who assisted with data collection and processing.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Claxton, G. Intelligence in the Flesh: Why Your Mind Needs Your Body Much More than It Thinks. In New Haven and London; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 2015; Volume 20. [Google Scholar]
  2. Howie, E.K.; Pate, R.R. Physical activity and academic achievement in children: A historical perspective. J. Sport Health Sci. 2012, 1, 160–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Illing, H.A.; Piaget, J. The construction of reality in the Child. J. Crim. Law Criminol. Police Sci. 1954, 46, 378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Beilin, H.; Fireman, G. The Foundation of Piaget’s Theories: Mental and Physical Action. Adv. Child Dev. Behav. 1999, 27, 221–246. [Google Scholar]
  5. McClelland, E.; Pitt, A.; Stein, J. Enhanced academic performance using a novel classroom physical activity intervention to increase awareness, attention and self-control: Putting embodied cognition into practice. Improv. Sch. 2015, 18, 83–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Gallese, V.; Lakoff, G. The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 2005, 22, 455–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Hung, I.W.; Labroo, A.A. From firm muscles to firm willpower: Understanding the role of embodied cognition in self-regulation. J. Consum. Res. 2011, 37, 1046–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sommerville, J.A.; Woodward, A.L.; Needham, A. Action experience alters 3-month-old infants’ perception of others’ actions. Cognition 2005, 96, B1–B11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sweller, J. Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning. Cogn. Sci. 1988, 12, 257–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pagani, L.S.; Messier, S. Links between motor skills and indicators of school readiness at kindergarten entry in urban disadvantaged children. J. Educ. Dev. Psychol. 2012, 2, 95–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cameron, C.E.; Cottone, E.A.; Murrah, W.M.; Grissmer, D.W. How Are Motor Skills Linked to Children’s School Performance and Academic Achievement? Child Dev. Perspect. 2016, 10, 93–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. van der Fels, I.M.J.; Te Wierike, S.C.M.; Hartman, E.; Elferink-Gemser, M.T.; Smith, J.; Visscher, C. The relationship between motor skills and cognitive skills in 4–16 year old typically developing children: A systematic review. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2015, 18, 697–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Burton, A.W.; Rodgerson, R.W. New Perspectives on the Assessment of Movement Skills and Motor Abilities. Adapt. Phys. Act. Q. 2001, 18, 347–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Desmond, J.E.; Sum, J.M.; Wagner, A.D.; Demb, J.B.; Shear, P.K.; Glover, G.H.; Gabrieli, J.D.E.; Morrell, M.J. Functional MRI measurement of language Lateralization in Wada-tested patients. Brain 1995, 118 Pt 6, 1411–1419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Diamond, A. Close Interrelation of Motor Development and Cognitive Development and of the Cerebellum and Prefrontal Cortex. Child Dev. 2000, 71, 44–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Oberer, N.; Gashaj, V.; Roebers, C.M. Executive functions, visual-motor coordination, physical fitness and academic achievement: Longitudinal relations in typically developing children. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2018, 58, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Alloway, T.P.; Alloway, R.G. Investigating the predictive roles of working memory and IQ in academic attainment. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 2010, 106, 20–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Gallahue, D.L.; Ozmun, J.C. Motor Development in Young Children; Routledge: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  19. da Silva Pacheco, S.C.; Gabbard, C.; Ries, L.G.K.; Bobbio, T.G. Interlimb coordination and academic performance in elementary school children. Pediatr. Int. 2016, 58, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Kim, H.; Duran, C.A.K.; Cameron, C.E.; Grissmer, D. Developmental Relations among Motor and Cognitive Processes and Mathematics Skills. Child Dev. 2017, 89, 476–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zhang, L.; Sun, J.; Richards, B.; Davidson, K.; Rao, N. Motor Skills and Executive Function Contribute to Early Achievement in East Asia and the Pacific. Early Educ. Dev. 2018, 29, 1061–1080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Syväoja, H.J.; Kankaanpää, A.; Hakonen, H.; Inkinen, V.; Kulmala, J.; Joensuu, L.; Räsänen, P.; Hillman, C.H.; Tammelin, T.H. How physical activity, fitness, and motor skills contribute to math performance: Working memory as a mediating factor. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2021, 31, 2310–2321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. de Bruijn, A.G.; Kostons, D.D.; van der Fels, I.M.; Visscher, C.; Oosterlaan, J.; Hartman, E.; Bosker, R.J. Importance of aerobic fitness and fundamental motor skills for academic achievement. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2019, 43, 200–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Schmidt, M.; Egger, F.; Benzing, V.; Jäger, K.; Conzelmann, A.; Roebers, C.M.; Pesce, C. Disentangling the relationship between children’s motor ability, executive function and academic achievement. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0182845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Lê, M.; Quémart, P.; Potocki, A.; Gimenes, M.; Chesnet, D.; Lambert, E. Modeling the influence of motor skills on literacy in third grade: Contributions of executive functions and handwriting. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0259016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Coetzee, D.; Pienaar, A.E.; Wyk, Y.V. Relationship between academic achievement, visual-motor integration, gender and socioeconomic status: North-West Child Health Integrated with Learning and Development study. S. Afr. J. Child Educ. 2020, 10, 2223–7674. [Google Scholar]
  27. Casey, B.M.; Pezaris, E.; Fineman, B.; Pollock, A.; Demers, L.; Dearing, E. A longitudinal analysis of early spatial skills compared to arithmetic and verbal skills as predictors of fifth-grade girls’ math reasoning. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2015, 40, 90–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Milne, N.; Cacciotti, K.; Davies, K.; Orr, R. The relationship between motor proficiency and reading ability in Year 1 children: A cross-sectional study. BMC Pediatr. 2018, 18, 294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Costa, R.Z.F.; Marques, I.; De Santo, D.L.; Medina-Papst, J. Relationship between childrens competence self-perception, academic performance and motor performance. J. Phys. Educ. 2018, 30, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Chagas, D.V.; Leporace, G.; Batista, L.A. Relationships between Motor Coordination and Academic Achievement in Middle School Children. Int. J. Exerc. Sci. 2016, 9, 616–624. [Google Scholar]
  31. Macdonald, K.; Milne, N.; Orr, R.; Pope, R. Relationships between Motor Proficiency and Academic Performance in Mathematics and Reading in School-Aged Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Env. Res. Pub. He. 2018, 15, 1603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 88, 105906. [Google Scholar]
  33. Law, M.; Stewart, D.; Pollock, N.; Letts, L.; Bosch, J.; Westmorland, M. Guidelines for Critical Review Form—Quantitative Studies. Available online: https://merst.ca/ephpp/ (accessed on 10 May 2023).
  34. Bloemen, M.A.; Backx, F.J.; Takken, T.; Wittink, H.; Benner, J.; Mollema, J.; De Groot, J.F. Factors associated with physical activity in children and adolescents with a physical disability: A systematic review. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2015, 57, 137–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Sallis, J.F.; Prochaska, J.J.; Taylor, W.C. A review of correlates of physical activity of children and adolescents. Med. Sci. Sport Exer. 2000, 32, 963–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Li, R.; Sit, C.H.; Jane, J.Y.; Duan, J.Z.; Fan, T.C.; McKenzie, T.L.; Wong, S.H. Correlates of physical activity in children and adolescents with physical disabilities: A systematic review. Prev. Med. 2016, 89, 184–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Henderson, S.E.; Sugden, D.; Barnett, A.L. Movement Assessment Battery for Children; Psychological Corporation London: Kent, UK, 1992; pp. 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  38. Henderson, S.; Sugden, D.; Barnett, A. Movement Assessment Battery for Children, 2nd ed.; The Psychological Corporation: London, UK, 2007; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  39. South, M.; Palilla, J. Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  40. Beery, K.E.; Beery, N.A. Beery VMI Administration, Scoring and Teaching Manual; NCS Pearson, Inc.: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  41. Kiphard, E.J.; Schilling, F. Korperkoordinationstest Fiir Kinder: KTK; Die Verlagsgruppe Beltz: Weinheim, Germany, 2007; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  42. Meisels, S.J.; Marsden, D.B.; Wiske, M.S.; Henderson, L.W. The Early Screening Inventory—Revised; Rebus: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  43. Jaakkola, T.; Hillman, C.; Kalaja, S.; Liukkonen, J. The associations among fundamental movement skills, self-reported physical activity and academic performance during junior high school in Finland. J. Sport Sci. 2015, 33, 1719–1729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Aadland, K.N.; Moe, V.F.; Aadland, E.; Anderssen, S.A.; Resaland, G.K.; Ommundsen, Y. Relationships between physical activity, sedentary time, aerobic fitness, motor skills and executive function and academic performance in children. Ment. Health Phys. Act. 2017, 12, 10–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Syväoja, H.J.; Kankaanpää, A.; Joensuu, L.; Kallio, J.; Hakonen, H.; Hillman, C.H.; Tammelin, T.H. The Longitudinal Associations of Fitness and Motor Skills with Academic Achievement. Med. Sci. Sport Exer. 2019, 51, 2050–2057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Aadland, K.N.; Ommundsen, Y.; Aadland, E.; Brønnick, K.S.; Lervåg, A.; Resaland, G.K.; Moe, V.F. Executive functions do not mediate prospective relations between indices of physical activity and academic performance: The Active Smarter Kids (ASK) study. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lonnemann, J.; Linkersdörfer, J.; Heselhaus, V.; Hasselhorn, M.; Lindberg, S. Relations between balancing and arithmetic skills in children—Evidence of cerebellar involvement? J. Neurolinguist. 2011, 24, 592–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Geertsen, S.S.; Thomas, R.; Larsen, M.N.; Dahn, I.M.; Andersen, J.N.; Krause-Jensen, M.; Korup, V.; Nielsen, C.M.; Wienecke, J.; Ritz, C.; et al. Motor Skills and Exercise Capacity Are Associated with Objective Measures of Cognitive Functions and Academic Performance in Preadolescent Children. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0161960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Haapala, E.A.; Poikkeus, A.M.; Tompuri, T.; Kukkonen-Harjula, K.; Leppänen, P.T.; Lindi, V.; Lakka, T.A. Associations of motor and cardiovascular performance with academic skills in children. Med. Sci. Sport Exer. 2014, 46, 1016–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Rigoli, D.; Piek, J.P.; Kane, R.; Oosterlaan, J. Motor coordination, working memory, and academic achievement in a normative adolescent sample: Testing a mediation model. Arch. Clin. Neuropsych. 2012, 27, 766–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Kurdek, L.A.; Sinclair, R.J. Predicting reading and mathematics achievement in fourth-grade children from kindergarten readiness scores. J. Educ. Psychol. 2001, 93, 451–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Son, S.-H.; Meisels, S.J. The relationship of young children’s motor skills to later reading and math achievement. Merrill-Palmer. Q. 2006, 52, 755–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Beck, M.M.; Lind, R.R.; Geertsen, S.S.; Ritz, C.; Lundbye-Jensen, J.; Wienecke, J. Motor-Enriched Learning Activities Can Improve Mathematical Performance in Preadolescent Children. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2016, 10, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ericsson, I. Motor skills, attention, and academic achievements. An intervention study in school years 1–3. Brit. Educ. Res. J. 2013, 34, 301–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Macdonald, K.; Milne, N.; Pope, R.; Orr, R. Evaluation of a 12-Week Classroom-Based Gross Motor Program Designed to Enhance Motor Proficiency, Mathematics and Reading Outcomes of Year 1 School Children: A Pilot Study. Early Child. Educ. J. 2021, 50, 811–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Nobre, G.C.; Nobre, F.S.S.; Valentini, N. Effectiveness of a Mastery Climate Cognitive-Motor Skills School-based Intervention in children living in poverty: Motor and Academic performance, self-perceptions, and BMI. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagog. 2022, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Mullender-Wijnsma, M.J.; Hartman, E.; de Greeff, J.W.; Doolaard, S.; Bosker, R.J.; Visscher, C. Physically Active Math and Language Lessons Improve Academic Achievement: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial. Pediatrics 2016, 137, e20152743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Waal, E.; Pienaar, A. Influences of Early Motor Proficiency and Socioeconomic Status on the Academic Achievement of Primary School Learners: The NW-CHILD Study. Early Child Educ. J. 2020, 31, 671–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Macdonald, K.; Milne, N.; Orr, R.; Pope, R. Associations between motor proficiency and academic performance in mathematics and reading in year 1 school children: A cross-sectional study. BMC Pediatr. 2020, 20, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Van Niekerk, L.; Du Toit, D.; Pienaar, A.E. The relationship between motor proficiency and academic performance of adolescent learners in Potchefstroom, South Africa: The PAHL Study. Afr. J. Phys. Health Educ. 2015, 21, 1321–1336. [Google Scholar]
  61. Fernández-Méndez, L.M.; Contreras, M.J.; Mammarella, I.C.; Feraco, T.; Meneghetti, C. Mathematical achievement: The role of spatial and motor skills in 6–8 year-old children. PeerJ 2020, 8, e10095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Gandhi, M.; Teivaanmaki, T.; Maleta, K.; Duan, X.; Ashorn, P.; Cheung, Y.B. Child development at 5 years of age predicted mathematics ability and schooling outcomes in Malawian adolescents. Acta Paediatr. 2013, 102, 58–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Giles, O.T.; Shire, K.A.; Hill, L.J.; Mushtaq, F.; Waterman, A.; Holt, R.J.; Culmer, P.R.; Williams, J.H.G.; Wilkie, R.M.; Mon-Williams, M.; et al. Hitting the Target: Mathematical Attainment in Children Is Related to Interceptive-Timing Ability. Psychol. Sci. 2018, 29, 1334–1345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Escolano-Pérez, E.; Herrero-Nivela, M.L.; Losada, J.L. Association between Preschoolers’ Specific Fine (But Not Gross) Motor Skills and Later Academic Competencies: Educational Implications. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Grissmer, D.; Grimm, K.J.; Aiyer, S.M.; Murrah, W.M.; Steele, J.S. Fine Motor Skills and Early Comprehension of the World: Two New School Readiness Indicators. Dev. Psychol. 2010, 46, 1008–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Van den Berg, V.; Singh, A.S.; Komen, A.; Hazelebach, C.; van Hilvoorde, I.; Chinapaw, M.J.M. Integrating Juggling with Math Lessons: A Randomized Controlled Trial Assessing Effects of Physically Active Learning on Maths Performance and Enjoyment in Primary School Children. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Papadimitriou, A.M.; Vlachos, F.M. Which specific skills developing during preschool years predict the reading performance in the first and second grade of primary school? Early Child Dev. Care 2014, 184, 1706–1722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Damsgaard, L.; Elleby, S.R.; Gejl, A.K.; Malling, A.S.B.; Bugge, A.; Lundbye-Jensen, J.; Poulsen, M.; Nielsen, G.N.; Wienecke, J.W. Motor-Enriched Encoding Can Improve Children’s Early Letter Recognition. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Botha, S.; Africa, E.K. The Effect of a Perceptual-Motor Intervention on the Relationship between Motor Proficiency and Letter Knowledge. Early Child Educ. J. 2020, 48, 727–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Syväoja, H.J.; Kankaanpää, A.; Kallio, J.; Hakonen, H.; Kulmala, J.; Hillman, C.H.; Pesonen, A.-K.; Tammelin, T.H. The Relation of Physical Activity, Sedentary Behaviors, and Academic Achievement Is Mediated by Fitness and Bedtime. J. Phys. Act. Health 2017, 15, 135–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Batez, M.; Milošević, Ž.; Mikulić, I.; Sporiš, G.; Mačak, D.; Trajković, N. Relationship between Motor Competence, Physical Fitness, and Academic Achievement in Young School-Aged Children. BioMed Res. Int. 2021, 2021, 6631365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lima, R.A.; Stodden, D.F.; Pfeiffer, K.A.; Larsen, L.R.; Barros, M.V.G.; Bugge, A.; Andersen, L.B. Dynamic Balance, but Not Precision Throw, Is Positively Associated with Academic Performance in Children. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Lopes, L.; Santos, R.; Pereira, B.; Lopes, V.P. Associations between gross Motor Coordination and Academic Achievement in elementary school children. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2013, 32, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Fernández-Sánchez, A.; Redondo-Tébar, A.; Sánchez-López, M.; Visier-Alfonso, M.E.; Muñoz-Rodríguez, J.R.; Martínez-Vizcaíno, V. Sex differences on the relation among gross motor competence, cognition, and academic achievement in children. Scand. J. Psychol. 2022, 63, 504–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Katagiri, M.; Ito, H.; Murayama, Y.; Hamada, M.; Nakajima, S.; Takayanagi, N.; Uemiya, A.; Myogan, M.; Nakai, A.; Tsujii, M. Fine and gross motor skills predict later psychosocial maladaptation and academic achievement. Brain Dev.-Jpn. 2021, 43, 605–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Ryu, J.-S.; Chung, H.R.; Meador, B.M.; Seo, Y.; Kim, K.-O. The Associations between Physical Fitness, Complex vs Simple Movement, and Academic Achievement in a Cohort of Fourth Graders. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ericsson, I.; Karlsson, M.K. Motor skills and school performance in children with daily physical education in school—A 9-year intervention study. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2012, 24, 273–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Ricciardi, C.; Manfra, L.; Hartman, S.; Bleiker, C.; Dineheart, L.; Winsler, A. School readiness skills at age four predict academic achievement through 5th grade. Early Child. Res. Q. 2021, 57, 110–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Duran, C.A.; Byers, A.; Cameron, C.E.; Grissmer, D. Unique and compensatory associations of executive functioning and visuomotor integration with mathematics performance in early elementary school. Early Child Res. Q. 2018, 42, 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Sortor, J.M.; Kulp, M.T. Are the results of the Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration and its subtests related to achievement test scores? Optom. Vis. Sci. 2003, 80, 758–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Sulik, M.J.; Haft, S.L.; Obradovic, J. Visual-Motor Integration, Executive Functions, and Academic Achievement: Concurrent and Longitudinal Relations in Late Elementary School. Early Educ. Dev. 2018, 29, 956–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Hopkins, S.; Black, A.A.; White, S.L.; Wood, J.M. Visual information processing skills are associated with academic performance in Grade 2 school children. Acta Ophthalmol. 2019, 28, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Pienaar, A.E.; Barhorst, R.; Twisk, J. Relationships between academic performance, SES school type and perceptual-motor skills in first grade South African learners: NW-CHILD study. Child Care Health Dev. 2014, 40, 370–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Bellocchi, S.; Muneaux, M.; Huau, A.; Lévêque, Y.; Jover, M.; Ducrot, S. Exploring the link between visual perception, visual–motor integration, and reading in normal developing and impaired children using DTVP-2. Dyslexia 2017, 23, 296–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Schatschneider, C.; Fletcher, J.M.; Francis, D.J.; Carlson, C.D.; Foorman, B.R. Kindergarten prediction of reading skills: A longitudinal comparative analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 2004, 96, 265–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Michel, E.; Molitor, S.; Schneider, W. Executive Functions and Fine Motor Skills in Kindergarten as Predictors of Arithmetic Skills in Elementary School. Dev. Neuropsychol. 2020, 45, 367–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Gashaj, V.; Oberer, N.; Mast, F.W.; Roebers, C.M. The Relation between Executive Functions, Fine Motor Skills, and Basic Numerical Skills and Their Relevance for Later Mathematics Achievement. Early Educ. Dev. 2018, 30, 913–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Pitchford, N.J.; Papini, C.; Outhwaite, L.A.; Gulliford, A. Fine Motor Skills Predict Maths Ability Better than They Predict Reading Ability in the Early Primary School Years. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Dinehart, L.; Manfra, L. Associations between low-income children’s fine motor skills in preschool and academic performance in second grade. Early Educ. Dev. 2013, 24, 138–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Manfra, L.; Squires, C.; Dinehart, L.H.B.; Bleiker, C.; Hartman, S.C.; Winsler, A. Preschool writing and premathematics predict Grade 3 achievement for low-income, ethnically diverse children. J. Educ. Res. 2016, 110, 528–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Luo, Z.; Jose, P.E.; Huntsinger, C.S.; Pigott, T.D. Fine motor skills and mathematics achievement in East Asian American and European American kindergartners and first graders. Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 2007, 25, 595–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Brock, L.L.; Kim, H.; Grissmer, D.W. Longitudinal Associations Among Executive Function, Visuomotor Integration, and Achievement in a High-Risk Sample. Mind Brain Educ. 2018, 12, 23–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Carlson, A.G.; Ellen, R.; Timothy, W.C. Disentangling Fine Motor Skills’ Relations to Academic Achievement: The Relative Contributions of Visual-Spatial Integration and Visual-Motor Coordination. J. Genet. Psychol. 2013, 174, 514–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Nesbitt, K.T.; Fuhs, M.W.; Farran, D.C. Stability and instability in the co-development of mathematics, executive function skills, and visual-motor integration from prekindergarten to first grade. Early Child Res. Q. 2018, 46, 262–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Atsushi, A.; Taro, M.; Shinichir, O.S. Effect of fine motor skills training on arithmetical ability in children. Eur. J. Dev. Psychol. 2017, 16, 290–301. [Google Scholar]
  96. Mohamed, M.B.H.; O’brien, B.A. Defining the relationship between fine motor visual-spatial integration and reading and spelling. Read. Writ. 2021, 35, 877–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Suggate, S.; Stoeger, H.; Fischer, U. Finger-based numerical skills link fine motor skills to numerical development in preschoolers. Percept. Mot. Ski. 2017, 124, 1085–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Lachance, J.A.; Mazzocco, M.M.M. A longitudinal analysis of sex differences in math and spatial skills in primary school age children. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2006, 16, 195–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Doyen, A.-L.; Lambert, E.; Dumas, F.; Carlier, M. Manual performance as predictor of literacy acquisition: A study from kindergarten to grade 1. Cogn. Dev. 2017, 43, 80–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Santi, K.L.; Francis, D.J.; Currie, D.; Wang, Q. Visual-motor integration skills: Accuracy of predicting reading. Optom. Vis. Sci. 2015, 92, 217–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Memis, A.; Sivri, D.A. The analysis of reading skills and visual perception levels of first grade Turkish students. J. Educ. Train. Stud. 2016, 4, 161–166. [Google Scholar]
  102. Mayes, S.D.; Calhoun, S.L.; Bixler, E.O.; Zimmerman, D.N. IQ and neuropsychological predictors of academic achievement. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2009, 19, 238–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Roebers, C.M.; Röthlisberger, M.; Neuenschwander, R.; Cimeli, P.; Michel, E.; Jäger, K. The relation between cognitive and motor performance and their relevance for children’s transition to school: A latent variable approach. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2014, 33, 284–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Julius, M.S.; Meir, R.; Shechter-Nissim, Z.; Adi-Japha, E. Children’s ability to learn a motor skill is related to handwriting and reading proficiency. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2016, 51, 265–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Uhrich, T.A.; Swalm, R.L. A pilot study of a possible effect from a motor task on reading performance. Percept. Motor. Ski. 2007, 104, 1035–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Taverna, L.; Tremolada, M.; Tosetto, B.; Dozza, L.; Renata, Z.S. Impact of Psycho-Educational Activities on Visual-Motor Integration, Fine Motor Skills and Name Writing among First Graders: A Kinematic Pilot Study. Children 2020, 7, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Fernandes, V.R.; Ribeiro, M.L.S.; Melo, T.; de Tarso Maciel-Pinheiro, P.; Guimarães, T.T.; Araújo, N.B.; Ribeiro, S.; Deslandes, A.C. Motor Coordination Correlates with Academic Achievement and Cognitive Function in Children. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Kim, H.; Murrah, W.M.; Cameron, C.E.; Brock, L.L.; Cottone, E.A.; Grissmer, D. Psychometric Properties of the Teacher-Reported Motor Skills Rating Scale. J. Psychoeduc. Assess. 2014, 33, 640–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Andalò, B.; Rigo, F.; Rossi, G.; Majorano, M.; Lavelli, M. Do motor skills impact on language development between 18 and 30 months of age? Infant. Behav. Dev. 2022, 66, 101667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Gonzalez, S.L.; Alvarez, V.; Nelson, E.L. Do gross and fine motor skills differentially contribute to language outcomes? A systematic review. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 2670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Boulenger, V.; Roy, A.C.; Paulignan, Y.; Deprez, V.; Jeannerod, M.; Nazir, T.A. Cross-talk between language processes and overt motor behavior in the first 200 msec of processing. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2006, 18, 1607–1615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Glenberg, A. Grounding Symbolic Operations in the Brain’s Modal Systems; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  113. Schmidt, M.; Benzing, V.; Wallman-Jones, A.; Mavilidi, M.F.; Lubans, D.R.; Paas, F. Embodied learning in the classroom: Effects on primary school children’s attention and foreign language vocabulary learning. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2019, 43, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Kiefer, M.; Trumpp, N.M. Embodiment theory and education: The foundations of cognition in perception and action. Trends Neurosci. Educ. 2012, 1, 15–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Cunningham, A.E.; Stanovich, K.E. Early spelling acquisition: Writing beats the computer. J. Educ. Psychol. 1990, 82, 159–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Cahill, S.M. Where Does Handwriting Fit In? Strategies to Support Academic Achievement. Interv. Sch. Clin. 2009, 44, 223–228. [Google Scholar]
  117. Baker, S.; Gersten, R.; Graham, S. Teaching expressive writing to children with learning disabilities: Research based applications and examples. J. Learn. Disabil. Us. 2003, 36, 109–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Berninger, V.; Fuller, F. Gender differences in orthographic, verbal, and compositional fluency: Implications for assessing writing disabilities in primary grade children. J. Sch. Psycholy. 1992, 30, 363–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Lakoff, G.; Núñez, R.E. Where Mathematics Come From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  120. Hill, E.L. The importance of motor skill in general development. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2010, 52, 888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Andres, M.; Michaux, N.; Pesenti, M. Common substrate for mental arithmetic and finger representation in the parietal cortex. NeuroImage 2012, 62, 1520–1528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Tschentscher, N.; Hauk, O.; Fischer, M.H.; Pulvermüller, F. You can count on the motor cortex: Finger counting habits modulate motor cortex activation evoked by numbers. NeuroImage 2012, 59, 3139–3148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Osorio-Valencia, E.; Torres-Sánchez, L.; Lopez-Carrillo, L.; Rothenberg, S.J.; Schnaas, L. Early motor development and cognitive abilities among Mexican preschoolers. Child Neuropsychol. 2017, 24, 1015–1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Children 11 00336 g001
Figure 1. Flow diagram of the literature search.
Figure 1. Flow diagram of the literature search.
Children 11 00336 g001
Table 2. Summary of studies on the relationships between GMSs/FMSs and AA.
Table 2. Summary of studies on the relationships between GMSs/FMSs and AA.
Summary CodingAssociatedNot AssociatedSummary Coding
Motor SkillSubjectReferences No.(−/+)References No.0n/N(%)Coding
GMSMath[22,23], [43] F, [43] M, [44] F, [44] M, [45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52], [53,54,55,56,57]+[10,19,29], [30] F, [30] M, [43] F, [47,50,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65], [66]019/3652.8?
Reading[19,23], [44] F, [46,48,49,50,51,52,67], [55,56,68,69]+[10,29], [30] M, [30] F, [44] M, [49,50,59,63,64,65], [57]014/2653.8?
Writing[19], [30] M+[29], [30] F, [63,64], [56]02/728.60
Spelling[57,69]+[23,50]02/450.0?
Language[43] F, [43] M, [44] F, [46], [54]+[58,60]05/862.5+
[44] M−
History[43] F, [43] M+[43] F, [43] M0 ND
Overall Performance[19,24], [43] F, [43] M, [44] F, [70,71,72,73,74,75], [76] F, [77]+[10], [44] M, [58,64,72,76] M013/2065.0+
[78]−
FMSMath[10,16,20,26,48,49,51,52,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94], [53,95]+[19,29,49,50,59,60,64,83,88,91,96]033/4475.0+
Reading[10,25,28,48,49,52,59,63,64,65,67,80,82,83,84,85,86,89,90,93,94,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104], [68,105]+[19,25,28,49,50,51,59,67,84,89,91], [105]032/4472.7+
Writing[63,64,83,96,104], [106]+[19,29], [106]06/966.7+
Spelling[25,94,100] [25,50] 3/560.0+
Language[26,60,81,96]+[60] 4/580.0+
Science[26]+ ND
Overall Performance[10,26,64,75,78], [76] F, [83,100,107,108]+[19], [76] M010/1283.3+
Note: (1) “No Description (ND)”: when the number of studies is 1; “+” or “−”: positive or negative correlation when the variable appeared in two or more studies, with ≥60% of the associations in the same direction; “?”: inconsistent or uncertain correlation, with 34–59% of the associations in the same direction; “0”: no association, with 0–33% of the associations in the same direction. (2) Four different studies investigated the correlation between motor skills and academic performance in boys and girls, and the findings were reported separately by gender. (3) Bold serial numbers are intervention studies. M: for male; F: for female.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, L.; Wang, L. Relationships between Motor Skills and Academic Achievement in School-Aged Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review. Children 2024, 11, 336. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/children11030336

AMA Style

Wang L, Wang L. Relationships between Motor Skills and Academic Achievement in School-Aged Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review. Children. 2024; 11(3):336. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/children11030336

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Lijing, and Lijuan Wang. 2024. "Relationships between Motor Skills and Academic Achievement in School-Aged Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review" Children 11, no. 3: 336. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/children11030336

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop