Beyond cognition: Exploring the affective dimensions of soil science education

ABSTRACT

Achieving soil conservation requires education that not only delivers factual knowledge but also sparks the personal commitment and care essential for lasting behavioral change. However, by emphasizing cognitive domains, current soil science curricula often neglect the affective dimensions that foster a deep connection to soil. This study explores how emotions and feelings influence soil-care attitudes among university agriculture students. The study participants were undergraduate students enrolled in the introductory soil science course (n = 28). The test design involved a survey, with a pre-test administered at the beginning of the semester and a post-test administered at the end of the semester. A confidential code was used to match the two tests of each respondent. Students with rural backgrounds demonstrated a stronger emotional connection to soil compared to their urban peers (p = 0.037). However, no significant effect of place of upbringing was observed on students’ attitude toward soil care. The course significantly improved students’ attitude toward soil care (p = 0.0049). Pre-test emotional connection to soil emerged as a strong predictor of post-test attitude toward soil care (r = 0.52, p = 0.004). In contrast, the predictive power of pre-test soil science knowledge on post-test attitude toward soil care was not statistically significant. The results of this study suggest that fostering a deeper emotional connection to soil can be a crucial strategy for promoting soil conservation among students. To achieve this, soil science education should incorporate more experiential and emotionally engaging learning activities.

Keywords
land degradation; action; engagement; performance; protection

INTRODUCTION

Soil management practices are critical to maintaining the life-support system of civilization. Indeed, improper soil management practices have been implicated in the collapse of several ancient societies (Hillel, 1992; Diamond, 2011). Recognizing this historical backdrop, scholars emphasize the importance of soil conservation for fostering sustainable development (Koch et al., 2013; Bijani et al., 2019; Lal et al., 2021).

The scientific literature proposes that the central objective of soil science education, particularly in formal soil management education, is to promote soil conservation (Muggler et al., 2006; Cosmo et al., 2024). However, soil science education tends to neglect the emotional and attitudinal aspects of learning, focusing primarily on cognitive learning aspects (Jelinski et al., 2020; Khoshnodifar et al., 2020; Brevik et al., 2022a).

Researchers acknowledge the lack of emotional learning in soil science education and seek solutions. For instance, the concept of “connection to soil” refers to a relationship with the soil (McBratney et al., 2014). Some authors used the term “soil connection” (Ball et al., 2018), positing that soil-people connection improves the sustainability of agriculture, while others use the term “connection to the land” (Herman, 2015). Crucially, the concept of connection to soil encompasses emotional bonds with soil (Charzynski et al., 2022). Similarly, Baldwin et al. (2017) used the term “love to the land”, also highlighting emotional bonds with soil. While terminology varies, scholars widely acknowledge the importance of emotions and feelings in responding to global soil degradation (Muggler, 2015; Jelinski et al., 2020; Brevik et al., 2022a).

The “Caring for Soil is Caring for Life” initiative (European Commission, 2020) underscores the paramount importance of soil care. However, a precise definition of “soil care” remains elusive. We define soil care as a measure of attitude toward soil conservation practices, commitment for soil health preservation, and disposition for sustainable soil management. It is also a measure of responsibility for soils (Krzywoszynska, 2023). For the purposes of this study, we will use “attitude”, “responsibility”, “commitment”, “disposition”, and “predisposition” interchangeably to refer to the attitudinal component of soil care. Our soil care scale incorporated the aforementioned perspectives, ensuring a comprehensive evaluation of soil care. However, it is important to emphasize that the attitudinal concept of soil care, as measured in this study, does not encompass actual behaviors (Burnham et al., 2023) or intentions to engage in specific soil management practices (Rabinovich et al., 2022).

While soil science knowledge is crucial for enhancing sustainable land management (Jalilian et al., 2025), our findings suggest a more nuanced relationship between knowledge and actual on-the-ground practices. Our previous study (Neaman et al., 2024) revealed a complex interplay between farmers’ soil science knowledge and their soil care attitudes, highlighting instances where knowledge does not necessarily translate into a strong sense of responsibility towards the soil, and conversely, where a strong sense of care can exist even with limited scientific understanding.

Effective environmental education programs must address emotional connections, not just cognitive knowledge (Pooley and O’Connor, 2000). This perspective suggests that fostering an emotional connection to soil may be crucial for cultivating a commitment to soil care within the context of soil science education. This raises a key research question: Does a stronger emotional connection to soil directly translate to increased commitment to soil care? Despite the fundamental nature of this question, existing research on this topic is limited, highlighting the novelty and significance of the present study. Accordingly, this study aimed to investigate the role of emotions and feelings in fostering soil care attitudes among university students of agriculture.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Measures

Data were collected using surveys that included three scales: (1) knowledge of soil science, (2) connection to soil, and (3) soil care.

(1) The scale of soil science knowledge (Table 1) utilized true/false questions to assess students’ objective understanding of soil management practices related to preventing various types of global soil degradation, such as salinization, sodification, acidification, contamination, depletion of soil organic matter (leading to reduced biological activity), loss of aggregate stability (resulting in compaction), and erosion. Validity criteria for this scale are discussed elsewhere (Neaman, 2024).

Table 1
Items of the soil science knowledge scale applied to evaluate students' objective understanding of soil degradation prevention

Code	Item	MS	δ	Answer	Test
K009	Sandy soils may have a lower bulk density than water.	1.07	2.03	F	Pre-test
K046	Soils of volcanic origin tend to have higher bulk density and lower porosity than non-volcanic soils.	1.04	1.89	F	Pre-test
K058	There is always a direct relationship between the calcium content of a soil and its pH: the lower the calcium content of the soil, the higher its pH.	1.14	1.23	F	Pre-test
K070	The electrical conductivity of soil is always higher in acidic soils compared to alkaline soils	0.91	1.07	F	Both
K042	The process of entrainment of soil particles by gravity at lower altitudes is called "soil compaction"	1.02	0.95	F	Pre-test
K081	Modification of soil texture is a common practice on an agricultural scale, for example, by adding large amounts of sand or clay to the entire soil surface on the farm.	0.91	0.59	F	Pre-test
K062	Mineral soils in arid regions usually have an acidic pH.	0.86	0.49	F	Pre-test
K087	Adding a layer of sand to the soil surface can improve its drainage.	1.01	0.49	F	Pre-test
K064	To prevent soil erosion on a sloping terrain, it is useful to apply herbicides in between windrows.	1.06	0.41	F	Both
K093	The lower the soil's bulk density, the better it is for plant development.	1.23	0.40	T	Both
K007	Sandy soils require longer irrigation compared with clay soils.	1.14	0.28	T	Both
K030	The main element in the structure of soil organic matter is phosphorus.	0.90	0.28	F	Both
K026	Insoluble salts (e.g., calcium carbonate) increase the electrical conductivity of the soil the most.	0.89	0.25	F	Pre-test
K047	Soil water retention depends mainly on its macropores.	1.38	0.14	F	Both
K072	To help protect the environment, it is useful to add as much nitrate as possible to the soil.	0.98	-0.01	F	Both
K067	Soil aggregation depends on fungi and bacteria, which exude glue-like substances.	1.13	-0.02	T	Both
K089	To improve soil structure, it is useful to add sodium salts (e.g., sodium sulfate) directly to the soil or via the irrigation system.	0.98	-0.02	F	Pre-test
K037	Vertisols contain high smectite (expansive clay) content and form deep cracks upon drying.	1.10	-0.08	T	Both
K057	To reduce the electrical conductivity of a saline soil, sulfuric acid can be added directly to the soil or through the irrigation system.	0.88	-0.25	F	Pre-test
K075	To improve plant growth, it is useful to add agricultural lime to the soil until its pH value is above 8.0.	0.75	-0.34	F	Both
K032	The degradation of soil structure makes the soil fluffier, improving plant growth.	0.78	-0.49	F	Both
K002	Some earthworm species are capable of digging tunnels up to 2 meters deep.	1.33	-0.54	T	Pre-test
K004	Mottling in the soil (red-orange and gray spots) indicates good drainage.	0.94	-0.59	F	Both
K019	The higher the soil's mesopore content, the better it is for plant development.	1.12	-0.59	T	Both
K056	To remediate sodic soils, it is useful to apply some organic matter to the soil.	0.78	-0.75	F	Pre-test
K015	The higher the clay content in the soil, the better it is for plant growth.	0.68	-0.77	F	Both
K017	Lighter colored soils have a higher abundance of organic matter.	0.71	-0.86	F	Both
K011	The higher the soil's salt content, the lower its electrical conductivity.	0.89	-1.13	F	Both
K079	To reduce the concentration of salts in a soil, it is useful to wash it with a large amount of non-saline water.	0.84	-1.13	T	Both
K010	Boron toxicity in soil is more common in arid than in rainy areas.	1.08	-1.13	T	Pre-test
K091	In general, sandy soils are more fertile than clay soils.	1.05	-1.25	F	Both
K059	To increase the pH of an excessively acidic soil, it is useful to apply agricultural lime (calcium and/or magnesium carbonate).	0.97	-1.30	T	Both
K052	To reduce salt concentration in a saline soil, it is useful to apply agricultural lime (calcium and/or magnesium carbonate).	0.74	-1.36	F	Pre-test
K074	Soil aeration depends on macropores.	1.00	-1.39	T	Both
K054	In rainy regions, soil acidification is a natural process.	0.97	-1.41	T	Both
K038	To increase the availability of nitrogen in the soil for plants, it is useful to add green materials (e.g., leaves or grass) to the soil.	1.16	-1.43	T	Pre-test
K088	To ensure optimal composting, the compost pile must be turned periodically.	1.09	-1.62	T	Pre-test
K035	To improve soil biological activity, it is useful to apply a fermented organic fertilizer.	0.97	-1.74	T	Pre-test
K083	To improve plant development, it is useful to keep the soil permanently saturated with water.	0.95	-1.98	F	Both
K082	Soils saturated with water have good aeration.	0.82	-2.18	F	Both
K041	Soils with low biological activity tend to have good structure.	0.99	-2.45	F	Pre-test
K008	The more salts in the soil, the better the plants grow.	1.24	-3.14	F	Both

• F: false; T: true. Item difficulties (δ) are expressed in logits, the basic units of Rasch scales. Larger logit values indicate more difficult items, whereas a smaller logit value indicates a less difficult item. Infit mean square values (MS) reflect the relative discrepancy in the variation between the model prediction and the observed data. Perfect model prediction is expressed by an MS value of 1.0. The MS values above 1.0 indicate excessive variation (e.g., a value of 1.2 indicates 20 % excessive variation). The MS values less than or equal to (≤1.2 are considered good, whereas MS values ≤1.3 are considered acceptable (Wright et al., 1994)

(2) To measure emotional connection to soil (Table 2), we used an instrument developed and validated in our previous study (Neaman et al., 2025). Adapted from the concept and measurement of connection to nature by Brügger et al. (2011), the connection to soil scale relies on self-reported past behaviors that reflect the emotional bond with soil. Emotions regarding nature, and soils in particular, may include a wide range of feelings, such as fascination (Lumber et al., 2017), respect (Eisenberg, 2013; Quintriqueo et al., 2014), interest (Kals et al., 1999), wonder, and curiosity. The scale incorporated items reflecting various aspects of connection to soil, including emotional bonds with soil (Charzynski et al., 2022), feelings about soil (Brevik et al., 2022b), and artistic interactions with soil (Hartemink et al., 2014). A 5-point Likert scale was used, offering nuanced responses with options including “never”, “rarely”, “sometimes”, “often”, and “always”.

Table 2
Attitude toward soil care scale used in the study. Items in italics were negatively formulated and reversely coded before the analysis. These items should be read as ‘I refrain from...’

Code	Item	MS	δ	Test
C61	The soil must be sanctified.	1.12	2.92	Post-test
C35R	Soil is the means to get the maximum amount of money for the property.	0.91	2.32	Post-test
C48	Taking care of the soil in one place improves soils all over the world.	1.40	1.88	Post-test
C28	The more we separate from the soil, the more we separate from ourselves.	0.81	1.28	Both
C25	Soil has the spirit of growth.	0.86	1.12	Both
C29R	If soil degrades today, future technology will find a substitute.	1.02	1.12	Both
C31	We must feed the soil, not the plants.	1.02	1.12	Both
C42	The soil is part of the human family.	0.85	1.09	Post-test
C06	In bad soil, even flowers refuse to bloom.	0.98	0.99	Pre-test
C71R	Soil serves only to produce food.	1.01	0.95	Post-test
C20	If we actually come into contact with a piece of food, we come into contact with the soil.	1.02	0.90	Pre-test
C60R	Dirt comes from the soil.	1.06	0.83	Post-test
C09	Causing any soil degradation is a crime.	0.95	0.68	Pre-test
C03	Instead of fertilizing plants, we must nourish the soil.	1.34	0.54	Pre-test
C32	If we have seeds, soil and water, we have the ingredients for a miracle.	0.90	0.48	Both
C36R	Children who play with soil play with dirt.	1.04	0.47	Post-test
C01R	Eroded soils are part of a beautiful landscape.	1.05	0.41	Pre-test
C07R	We must force the soil to ensure the economic profitability of the property.	1.00	0.41	Pre-test
C33	As the soil, so the harvest.	0.83	0.36	Post-test
C21	To forget to take care of the soil is to forget ourselves.	0.90	0.15	Both
C67	The soil is not just a substance; the soil has a soul.	1.07	0.15	Post-test
C58R	Soil does what it is told to do.	0.93	0.09	Post-test
C10	Bad soil gives bad harvests.	1.00	0.04	Pre-test
C13	A good farmer is nothing without good soil.	1.10	0.04	Pre-test
C62	The fertility of the soil is the future of civilization.	0.99	-0.17	Post-test
C22R	There is no limit to the soil's patience; the soil never says “enough”.	1.12	-0.18	Both
C55	The organisms that live in the soil are the children of the soil.	0.80	-0.23	Post-test
C56R	The soil is only useful for walking on.	1.14	-0.54	Post-test
C18	If we pollute the soil, no amount of money will save us.	0.69	-0.63	Pre-test
C27	Soil benefits from constant care and attention to detail.	0.92	-0.66	Both
C05R	If a soil degrades, we can abandon it and cultivate another one.	1.06	-0.73	Pre-test
C50	Soil is a sacred resource.	1.06	-0.85	Post-test
C30	Our most important job as farmers is to nourish and sustain the life of the organisms in the soil.	1.09	-0.91	Both
C08	Producing crops is noble; creating fertile soil is even nobler.	1.17	-0.94	Pre-test
C14	A nation that destroys its soil destroys itself.	0.91	-1.04	Pre-test
C70	The best fertilizer for the soil is the farmer's concern.	0.87	-1.10	Post-test
C34	Soil is the skin of planet Earth and we must protect it.	1.06	-1.14	Post-test
C64	To feed our people, we must first feed our soil.	0.92	-1.19	Post-test
C17	Soil is a living organism and must be treated with respect.	0.98	-1.35	Pre-test
C04	Agriculture that degrades the soil is bread for today, hunger for tomorrow.	1.03	-1.46	Pre-test
C11	Soil pollution is a silent killer.	0.82	-1.46	Pre-test
C16R	The important thing is the property's economic profitability; the soil does not matter.	1.08	-1.57	Pre-test
C12R	Soil can withstand anything; it must be exploited to the maximum.	0.93	-2.25	Pre-test
C15	Healthy soil, healthy food, healthy people.	0.89	-2.50	Pre-test

(3) To measure students’ attitude toward soil care (Table 3), we used an instrument developed in our previous study (Neaman et al., 2024). A 5-point Likert scale was used, offering nuanced responses with options including “strongly disagree”, “disagree”, “neither agree nor disagree”, “agree”, and “strongly agree”. Validity criteria for this scale are discussed elsewhere (Neaman, 2024).

Table 3
Connection to soil scale used in the study

Code	Item	MS	δ
E21	I sing songs to the soil.	0.91	3.49
E18	I paint using natural paints made from different soils.	0.94	2.80
E1	I sleep in direct contact with the soil.	0.97	2.30
E11	I paint my face with the soil.	0.80	1.63
E20	I do rituals or ceremonies for the soil.	1.49	1.52
E5	I collect different types of soil.	1.13	1.17
E15	I make manual and/or artistic works with soil.	0.76	1.17
E7	I converse with the soil.	0.80	1.06
E19	I take the time to try different soil textures with bare feet.	0.63	0.01
E16	I take the time to smell the soil.	0.92	-0.30
E2	I make drawings on the soil surface.	1.13	-0.41
E13	I mold shapes and forms using soil.	1.15	-0.51
E14	I take time to listen to the sound the soil makes when water is added to it.	0.95	-0.62
E22	I collect different types of rocks.	0.83	-0.85
E17	I walk without shoes on the ground.	1.24	-0.96
E4	I take photographs of the soil.	1.30	-1.08
E6	I take time to observe how water infiltrates the soil.	0.92	-1.28
E12	I take the time to observe different types of soils found in nature.	0.76	-1.33
E3	I look for stones and minerals in the soil.	0.85	-1.74
E9	I explore the organisms that live in the soil.	0.84	-1.74
E10	I take time to observe the different colors in the soil.	0.87	-1.90
E8	I deliberately get my hands dirty with soil.	0.90	-2.45

Population and course description

The study participants were undergraduate students enrolled in the introductory soil science course at the School of Agriculture, University of Tarapacá, Arica, Chile (n = 28). Table 4 summarizes participant socio-demographic characteristics.

Table 4
Sociodemographic characteristics of participants, expressed as the number of participants in each group (n) and the percentage of each group from the total number of participants (n = 28)

Variable	Group	%
Gender (%)	Female	43
	Male	57
Grew up in (%)	Rural	21
	Urban	79
Identify with indigenous ethnicity	Yes	68
	No	32
Indigenous origin	No	32
	Aymara	54
	Quechua	4
	Mapuche	7
	Diaguita	4
Income	It is very difficult for us to live on the income	7
	We find it difficult to live on the income	4
	We manage with the income	64
	We live comfortably on the income	25

Each participant was thoroughly informed about the study’s purpose, framework, and potential implications. This informed consent process emphasized the voluntary nature of participation, allowing farmers the autonomy to withdraw from the survey at any point, should they choose to do so. Data collection was conducted in a manner that respected the participants’ time and privacy, reinforcing the ethical standards of research.

The course curriculum included traditional lectures and calculation exercises. These exercises involved practical applications such as establishing soil bulk density based on the measurement results of the undisturbed core sample method, determining the gypsum application rate for the remediation of sodic soils, and estimating if natural nitrogen mineralization rates are sufficient to satisfy the nitrogen requirements of non-leguminous crops.

These traditional learning activities were complemented with several pre-recorded laboratory videos on the following subjects: the effect of organic matter on soil aggregate stability and the measurement methods for soil aggregate stability, the measurement of soil organic matter content by wet combustion using sodium dichromate and sulfuric acid, the measurement of total soil nitrogen by the Kjeldahl method, the measurement of calcium soil carbonate content by calcimeter (using the volume of CO₂ released upon reaction with HCl), the measurement of water pH and electrical conductivity (EC) with pH- and EC-meters, and the measurement of concentrations of cations and anions in soil saturated paste extract. After each video, an interactive quiz using the Kahoot platform was applied to enhance student learning.

These classroom-based activities were complemented with a greenhouse experiment comparing the effects of organic and conventional fertilization on plant growth. Finally, a field class on waterlogged soils and a soil mapping exercise were conducted at the School of Agriculture’s experimental station.

Test design

The test design involved a self-administered pen-to-paper survey, with a pre-test administered at the beginning of the semester and a post-test administered at the end of the semester. A confidential code was used to match the two tests of each respondent.

A well-known challenge in longitudinal studies involves potential bias arising from repeated exposure to identical questions in pre- and post-test (Sanders, 2019). When participants encounter the same questions, their improvement may reflect familiarity rather than actual skill development, leading to inflated results. To address this concern, we adopted a strategy employed by Kaiser et al. (2015). They successfully mitigated pre-test/post-test bias by subdividing their questionnaire into unique subsets for pre- and post-tests, while maintaining a small number of overlapping items between the two versions. This approach facilitates reliable assessment of individual performance growth while minimizing the influence of recall bias. We implemented a similar approach in this study. The scales of soil science knowledge and soil care were subdivided into pre- and post-test versions with the overlap of few items across questionnaires (Tables 1 and 3).

However, research suggests that specially designed interventions are required to change individual’s connection to nature within the context of environmental psychology (Coughlan et al., 2022). Since our introductory soil science course was not specifically designed to foster students’ connection to soil, we did not anticipate significant changes in this variable during the course. Thus, we decided to include the soil connection scale only in the pre-test and use it as a predictor of students’ post-test soil science knowledge and attitude toward soil care.

Scale calibration

The dichotomous Rasch model (Rasch, 1960) was used to calibrate the scales using the TAM package within RStudio. Preference was given to a Rasch-type model over classical test theory because Rasch models accommodate a wider range of item difficulties, enabling more precise measurement across different levels of the measured variable. Tables 1, 2 and 3 present item difficulties in logits, the fundamental unit of Rasch scales. Higher logit values indicate more difficult items requiring greater effort or knowledge, while lower logit values represent easier items.

Scale characteristics are displayed in table 5. Infit mean square (MS) is a goodness-of-fit statistic that reflects the discrepancy between the observed data and the model’s predictions in item response theory. A perfect model fit would result in an MS of 1.0. Values of MS less than or equal to (≤) 1.2 are considered good, while ≤1.3 can be considered acceptable (Wright et al., 1994). Furthermore, reliability is a key concept in psychometrics, referring to the consistency and accuracy of a measurement in differentiating between participants. Values of 0.7 or higher are considered satisfactory (Bond and Fox, 2007).

Table 5
Descriptive statistics for the scales used. The range of respondents’ scores is also shown for comparison with the item difficulty range

Scale	n	Respondents’ scores range	Item difficulty range	Reliability	Items with 1.2 < MS ≤ 1.3	Items with MS > 1.3
C	44	-4.79 – 0.29	-2.50 – 2.92	0.86	0	2
K	42	-4.75 – -0.35	-3.14 – 2.03	0.83	2	2
E	22	-2.90 – 1.74	-2.45 – 3.49	0.85	2	1

Statistical analyses

Given the relatively small sample size of the present study (n = 28), we considered results with 0.05< p-value ≤0.10 as marginally statistically significant. Pearson’s correlations were computed between variables under study in pre- and post-test (Table 6). Paired t-tests were used to examine the effect of the course on students’ soil science knowledge and attitude toward soil care, using a confidential code to match pre- and post-test scores for each student (Table 7). Statistical analysis also involved a linear model (Hardin and Hilbe, 2018) using post-test variables as response variables and pre-test variables as predictor variables (Table 8). Finally, a Kruskal-Wallis test was performed to analyze the effect of the students’ place of upbringing on variables under study (Table 9). These statistical analyses were carried out using the RStudio version 1.4.1106.

Table 6
Pearson correlations between variables under study in pre- and post-test: attitude toward soil care (C), soil science knowledge (K), and emotional connection to soil (E). In the abbreviation, the first letter means variable, whereas “pre” and “post” mean pre- and post-test. Emotional connection to soil was measured only in the pre-test

Variable	C-post	E	C-pre	K-pre
E	0.52*	—	n.s.	n.s.
C-pre	n.s.	n.s.	—	n.s.
K-pre	n.s.	0.34†	n.s.	—
K-post	n.s.	n.s.	n.s.	0.35†

• ^*
  p<0.05;
• ^†
  p<0.10;
• n.s. means not statistically significant.

Table 7
Results of paired t-test for soil science knowledge and attitude toward soil care

Variable	Pre-test mean ± SD	Post-test mean ± SD	p-value
Soil science knowledge	-1.9 ± 1.1	-0.57 ± 0.96	<0.001
Attitude toward soil care	-1.3 ± 1.1	-0.52 ± 1.3	0.0049

• SD: means standard deviation.

Table 8
Results of the linear model for the response variables of post-test soil care attitude and soil science knowledge. Values of p are shown for each variable in the model. Detailed model outputs are shown in the Supplementary Material.

Model number	Model	C-pre	K-pre	E
Response variable of post-test soil care attitude
1	C-pre, K-pre, E	n.s.	n.s.	**
2	C-pre, K-pre	n.s.	n.s.	—
3	C-pre, E	n.s.	—	**
4	E, K-pre	—	n.s.	**
Response variable of post-test soil science knowledge
5	K-pre, C-pre, E	n.s.	†	n.s.
6	K-pre, C-pre	n.s.	*	—
7	K-pre, E	—	†	n.s.
8	E, C-pre	n.s.	—	n.s.

• ^*
  p<0.05;
• ^**
  p<0.01;
• ^†
  p<0.10;
• n.s.: means not statistically significant. Abbreviations: attitude toward soil care (C), soil science knowledge (K), and emotional connection to soil (E). In the abbreviation, the first letter indicates the variable, whereas “pre” and “post” indicate the pre- and post-test. Emotional connection to soil was measured only in the pre-test.

Table 9
The effect of place of upbringing on emotional connection to soil. Mean, standard deviation (SD), and median value (in parentheses) are shown

Place of upbringing	n	Mean ± SD (median)
Rural	6	0.70 ± 1.3
		(1.0) A
Urban	22	-0.45 ± 1.1
		(-0.40) B

• Different letters mean statistically significant difference between rural and urban place of upbringing (Kruskal-Wallis test, p = 0.037).

RESULTS

All three scales used in the study exhibited excellent reliability (Table 5). Furthermore, all scales exhibited good item fit, with infit MS values ≤1.2. Only a few items exhibited marginally acceptable fit (1.2< MS ≤1.3), consistent with acceptable thresholds (Wright et al., 1994). Notably, all scales displayed a wide range of item difficulties, as intended. This feature allows for the accurate differentiation of individuals with varying levels of emotional connection to soil, soil science knowledge, and attitude toward soil care.

In the pre-test, a moderate positive correlation was observed between students’ knowledge of soil science and their emotional connection to soil (r = 0.34; p = 0.07). Similarly, pre-test soil science knowledge exhibited a moderate positive correlation with post-test soil science knowledge (r = 0.35; p = 0.06). Notably, pre-test emotional connection to soil emerged as a strong predictor of post-test attitude toward soil care (r = 0.52; p = 0.004) (Table 6).

Linear regression models (Table 8) corroborated the findings of the Pearson correlations (Table 6). Analysis with two or three predictor variables revealed that only pre-test emotional connection to soil significantly predicted post-test attitude toward soil care. In contrast, the predictive power of pre-test soil science knowledge and pre-test attitude toward soil care on post-test attitude toward soil care was not statistically significant. Similarly, pre-test soil science knowledge emerged as the sole significant predictor of post-test soil science knowledge. Neither pre-test emotional connection to soil nor pre-test attitude toward soil care significantly predicted post-test soil science knowledge (Table 8).

Soil science course resulted in a significant enhancement of students’ soil science knowledge (paired t-test, p<0.001; Table 7). Furthermore, the course significantly improved students’ attitude toward soil care (p = 0.0049; Table 7).

The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed a significant effect of the students’ place of upbringing on their emotional connection to soil. Specifically, students with rural backgrounds demonstrated a stronger emotional connection to soil compared to their urban peers (Table 9; p = 0.037). However, no significant effect of place of upbringing was observed on students’ soil science knowledge or attitude toward soil care, neither in the pre-test nor in the post-test (data not shown; p>0.10).

DISCUSSION

Interpretations and implications of study results

The present study suggests that students with a stronger initial emotional connection to soil demonstrated greater curiosity and consequently exhibited higher levels of soil science knowledge even before commencing the introductory soil science course. Similarly, students who exhibited greater initial learning enthusiasm continued to demonstrate strong engagement throughout the semester, resulting in higher levels of soil science knowledge. However, no direct effect of students’ initial emotional connection to soil on their acquisition of soil science knowledge during the semester was observed.

The key finding of the study, summarized in figure 1, is that students from rural backgrounds showed a significantly stronger emotional connection to soil than their urban peers. This finding aligns with other studies showing that individuals raised in rural environments have a stronger connection to soil (Riethmuller et al., 2021). Our study further found that students with a stronger emotional connection to soil were more inclined to engage in soil care. However, no direct effect of students’ place of upbringing was observed on their sense of responsibility for soil health.

Figure 1
Schematic summary of the study key findings.

Soil science education is intended to strengthen individuals’ connection to soil (Neaman et al., 2025). However, achieving this goal may be challenging due to increasing urbanization, particularly for students of agricultural curricula who may have limited prior connection to the land (Hartemink et al., 2014). Notably, 79 % of our participants grew up in urban environments. This underscores the need for greater “sensitization about soils” among urban students (Lal et al., 2021), especially given their future roles as agronomists making critical decisions on soil management.

Emotions in soil science education: An emerging field of research

In higher education, science is often perceived as a purely rational and objective domain, devoid of emotional influence (Ermakov, 2021). However, the process of science learning is not solely cognitive; it inevitably involves emotional and affective dimensions (Hedjazi and Omidi, 2008; Brígido et al., 2010). Recognizing this, the role of emotions in science education has emerged as a significant area of research within the broader field of educational psychology (Ermakov, 2012; Pekrun and Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2014). This growing body of research has important implications for soil science education as well.

Research in environmental education has demonstrated that individuals’ attitudes toward the environment are significantly influenced by their emotional connection to nature (Pooley and O’Connor, 2000; Ermakov, 2015). Fostering positive emotions toward the environment is therefore crucial for the success of environmental education programs. It is well established that positive emotions toward the environment can be enhanced through regular experiences in nature (Otto et al., 2019). Furthermore, exposure to nature at any stage of life is known to significantly increase an individual connection to the natural world (Cleary et al., 2020).

Findings from environmental education research suggest that fostering a strong emotional connection to nature is crucial for cultivating positive environmental attitudes. This principle has significant implications for soil science education, particularly in fostering soil conservation. While many soil science education programs emphasize the importance of field courses (Siewert et al., 2014), these experiences can be particularly valuable for urban students who may have limited prior connection to the land. Direct engagement with soil through field activities can provide opportunities to cultivate a deeper emotional connection to this vital resource.

The results of this study suggest that fostering a deeper emotional connection to soil can be a crucial strategy for promoting soil conservation among students. To achieve this, soil science education should incorporate more experiential and emotionally engaging learning activities. These activities could include: exploring the diverse organisms that inhabit the soil; engaging in direct sensory experiences, such as walking barefoot in the countryside and exploring different soil textures with bare feet; engaging in creative activities, such as painting with natural paints made from different soils and molding figures and shapes using clayey soil; fostering observation and wonder through activities such as photographing the soil, making drawings on the soil surface and observing plant germination firsthand. The effectiveness of various teaching approaches in fostering emotional connections to soil requires rigorous evaluation (Neaman et al., 2021). The questionnaires developed for this study can serve as valuable tools for future research in diverse student populations.

CONCLUSION

In higher education, science is often perceived as a purely rational and objective domain, devoid of emotional influence. However, the process of science learning is not solely cognitive; it inevitably involves emotional and affective dimensions.

Fostering a deeper emotional connection to soil can be a crucial strategy for promoting soil conservation among students. To achieve this, soil science education should incorporate more experiential and emotionally engaging learning activities. However, the effectiveness of various teaching approaches in fostering emotional connections to soil requires rigorous evaluation. The questionnaires developed for this study can serve as valuable tools for future research in diverse student populations.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was supported by the FONDECYT project 1250011 granted to Alexander Neaman. The RUDN University Strategic Academic Leadership Program supported the article written by Dmitry S. Ermakov. The research team extends its gratitude to Andrei A. Tchourakov, Sr., for his assistance in editing the English language version of the manuscript.

• How to cite:
  Neaman A, Brüggemann M, Navarro-Villarroel C, Mazuela P, Burnham E, Ermakov DS, Castro M. Beyond cognition: Exploring the affective dimensions of soil science education. Rev Bras Cienc Solo. 2026;50:e0250080. https://doi.org/10.36783/18069657rbcs20250080

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://www.rbcsjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/articles_xml/1806-9657-rbcs-50-e0250080/1806-9657-rbcs-50-e0250080-suppl01.pdf

DATA AVAILABILITY

The data will be provided upon request.

REFERENCES

• Baldwin C, Smith T, Jacobson C. Love of the land: Social-ecological connectivity of rural landholders. J Rural Stud. 2017;51:37-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.01.012
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.01.012
• Ball BC, Hargreaves PR, Watson CA. A framework of connections between soil and people can help improve sustainability of the food system and soil functions. Ambio. 2018;47:269-83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0965-z
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0965-z
• Bijani M, Ghazani E, Valizadeh N, Haghighi NF. Predicting and understanding farmers' soil conservation behavior in Mazandaran Province, Iran. J Agric Sci Technol. 2019;21:1705-19.
• Bond TG, Fox CM. Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. 2nd ed. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2007.
• Brevik EC, Hannam J, Krzic M, Muggler C, Uchida Y. The importance of soil education to connectivity as a dimension of soil security. Soil Secur. 2022a;7:100066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soisec.2022.100066
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soisec.2022.100066
• Brevik EC, Krzic M, Muggler C, Field D, Hannam J, Uchida Y. Soil science education: A multinational look at current perspectives. Nat Sci Educ. 2022b;51:e20077. https://doi.org/10.1002/nse2.20077
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/nse2.20077
• Brígido M, Bermejo ML, Conde MC, Mellado V. The emotions in teaching and learning nature sciences and physics/chemistry in pre-service primary teachers. US-China Educ Rev. 2010;7:25-32.
• Brügger A, Kaiser FG, Roczen N. One for all? Connectedness to nature, inclusion of nature, environmental identity, and implicit association with nature. Eur Psychol. 2011;16:324-33. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000032
  » https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000032
• Burnham E, Zabel S, Navarro-Villarroel C, Ermakov DS, Castro M, Neaman A, Otto S. Enhancing farmers’ soil conservation behavior: Beyond soil science knowledge. Geoderma. 2023;437:116583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2023.116583
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2023.116583
• Charzynski P, Urbanska M, Capra GF, Ganga A, Holmes P, Szulczewski M, et al. A global perspective on soil science education at third educational level; knowledge, practice, skills and challenges. Geoderma. 2022;425:116053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2022.116053
• Cleary A, Fielding KS, Murray Z, Roiko A. Predictors of nature connection among urban residents: Assessing the role of childhood and adult nature experiences. Environ Behav. 2020;52:579-610. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916518811431
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916518811431
• Cosmo CFD, Jesus AS, Sales MM, Luz MP, Mascarenha MMD. Educational videos on erosion disseminated through social media for soil education. Rev Bras Cienc Solo. 2024;48:e0230166. https://doi.org/10.36783/18069657rbcs20230166
  » https://doi.org/10.36783/18069657rbcs20230166
• Coughlan A, Ross E, Nikles D, De Cesare E, Tran C, Pensini P. Nature guided imagery: An intervention to increase connectedness to nature. J Environ Psychol. 2022;80:101759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101759
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101759
• Diamond J. Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed. rev ed. London, UK: Penguin Group; 2011.
• Eisenberg A. Aymara Indian perspectives on development in the Andes. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press; 2013.
• Ermakov DS. Sustainability as a driver for vocational education and competitiveness. In: Bogoviz AV, Ragulina JV, editors. Industry competitiveness: Digitalization, management, and integration. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2021. p. 774-81.
• Ermakov DS. The environmental psychology in the context of the sustainable development. RUDN J Psychol Pedag. 2012;2:10-5.
• Ermakov DS. Ecological competence and competency. Pedagogics. 2015;7:41-50.
• European Commission. Caring for soil is caring for life: Ensure 75% of soils are healthy by 2030 for healthy food, people, nature and climate. Brussels: European Commission; 2020.
• Hardin JW, Hilbe JM. Generalized linear models and extensions. 4th ed. College Station, Texas: Stata Press; 2018.
• Hartemink AE, Balks MR, Chen ZS, Drohan P, Field DJ, Krasilnikov P, Lowe DJ, Rabenhorst M, van Rees K, Schad P, Schipper LA, Sonneveld M, Walter C. The joy of teaching soil science. Geoderma. 2014;217:1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2013.10.016
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2013.10.016
• Hedjazi Y, Omidi M. Factors affecting the academic success of agricultural students at University of Tehran, Iran. J Agric Sci Technol. 2008;10:205-14.
• Herman A. Enchanting resilience: Relations of care and people-place connections in agriculture. J Rural Stud. 2015;42:102-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.10.003
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.10.003
• Hillel D. Out of the earth: Civilization and the life of the soil. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press; 1992.
• Jalilian N, Mohammadi Y, Mahdei KN, Nael M, Neaman A. Land ownership rights enhance farmers’ attitudes toward soil and soil conservation behavior: Insights from Iran. J Environ Manage. 2025;392:126821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.126821
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.126821
• Jelinski NA, Perrone SV, Blair HK, Fabian ML. Growing hearts and minds: Linking landscapes and lifescapes in a soils field course. Nat Sci Educ. 2020;49:e20018. https://doi.org/10.1002/nse2.20018
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/nse2.20018
• Kaiser FG, Otto S, Schuler J. Prosocial propensity bias in experimental research on helping behavior: The proposition of a discomforting hypothesis. Compr Psychol. 2015;4:11. https://doi.org/10.2466/49.CP.4.11
  » https://doi.org/10.2466/49.CP.4.11
• Kals E, Schumacher D, Montada L. Emotional affinity toward nature as a motivational basis to protect nature. Environ Behav. 1999;31:178-202. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139169921972056
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/00139169921972056
• Khoshnodifar Z, Abbasi E, Farhadian H, Sadighi H, Pouratashi M. Comparative comparison of lecture and team member teaching design methods in agricultural higher education system of Iran. J Agric Sci Technol. 2020;22:891-904.
• Koch A, McBratney A, Adams M, Field D, Hill R, Crawford J, Minasny B, Lal R, Abbott L, O'Donnell A, Angers D, Baldock J, Barbier E, Binkley D, Parton W, Wall DH, Bird M, Bouma J, Chenu C, Flora CB, Goulding K, Grunwald S, Hempel J, Jastrow J, Lehmann J, Lorenz K, Morgan CL, Rice CW, Whitehead D, Young I, Zimmermann M. Soil security: Solving the global soil crisis. Glob Policy. 2013;4:434-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12096
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12096
• Krzywoszynska A. Taking soil care seriously: A proposition. In: Patzel N, Grunwald S, Brevik EC, Feller C, editors. Cultural understanding of soils. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2023. p. 395-408.
• Lal R, Bouma J, Brevik E, Dawson L, Field DJ, Glaser B, Hatano R, Hartemink AE, Kosaki T, Lascelles B, Monger C, Muggler C, Ndzana GM, Norra S, Pan XC, Paradelo R, Reyes-Sanchez LB, Sanden T, Singh BR, Spiegel H, Yanai J, Zhang JB. Soils and sustainable development goals of the United Nations: An International Union of Soil Sciences perspective. Geoderma R. 2021;25:e00398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2021.e00398
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2021.e00398
• Lumber R, Richardson M, Sheffield D. Beyond knowing nature: Contact, emotion, compassion, meaning, and beauty are pathways to nature connection. PlosOne. 2017;12:e0177186. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177186
  » https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177186
• McBratney A, Field DJ, Koch A. The dimensions of soil security. Geoderma. 2014;213:203-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2013.08.013
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2013.08.013
• Muggler CC. Soil and education. In: Nortcliff S, editors. Task force: Soil matters – Solutions under foot. Germany, Schweizerbart: Science Publishers; 2015. p. 147-50.
• Muggler CC, Pinto FD, Machado VA. Soil education: Principles, theory and methods. Rev Bras Cienc Solo. 2006;30:733-40. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0100-06832006000400014
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/s0100-06832006000400014
• Neaman A. Methodological aspects for soil conservation behavior research. Idesia. 2024;42:86-94. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-34292024000400086
  » https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-34292024000400086
• Neaman A, Baierl T-M, Navarro-Villarroel C, Poblete-Ramos F, Lizardi N, Burnham E, Ermakov DS, Castro M. Emotional connection empowers farmer-driven soil conservation. Rev Bras Cienc Solo. 2025;49:e0250085. https://doi.org/10.36783/18069657rbcs20250085
  » https://doi.org/10.36783/18069657rbcs20250085
• Neaman A, Navarro-Villarroel C, Poblete-Ramos F, Lizardi N, Burnham E, Huerta-Salinas O, Zabel S, Ermakov DS, Castro M, Otto S. Reconciling the soil stewardship paradox: Knowledge without care, care without knowledge. Geoderma R. 2024;37:e00794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2024.e00794
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2024.e00794
• Neaman A, Stange C, Zabel S, Minkina TM, Yanez C, Burnham E, Otto S. Teaching soil science: The impact of laboratory and field components on the knowledge and attitude toward soil. Rev Bras Cienc Solo. 2021;45:e0210040. https://doi.org/10.36783/18069657rbcs20210040
  » https://doi.org/10.36783/18069657rbcs20210040
• Otto S, Evans GW, Moon MJ, Kaiser FG. The development of children’s environmental attitude and behavior. Glob Environ Change. 2019;58:101947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101947
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101947
• Pekrun R, Linnenbrink-Garcia L. International handbook of emotions in education. New York: Routledge; 2014.
• Pooley JA, O’Connor M. Environmental education and attitudes - Emotions and beliefs are what is needed. Environ Behav. 2000;32:711-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160021972757
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160021972757
• Quintriqueo S, Quilaqueo D, Torres H. Contribution for the teaching of natural sciences: Mapuche and school knowledge. Educ Pesq. 2014;40:965-82. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1517-97022014005000009
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/s1517-97022014005000009
• Rabinovich A, Zhischenko V, Nasseri M, Heath SC, Laizer A, Mkilema F, Patrick A, Wynants M, Blake WH, Mtei K, Ndakidemi P. Informing versus generating a discussion: Comparing two approaches to encouraging mitigation of soil erosion among Maasai pastoralists. J Environ Psychol. 2022;84:101885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101885
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101885
• Rasch G. Studies in mathematical psychology: I. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Oxford, England: Nielsen & Lydiche; 1960.
• Riethmuller ML, Dzidic PL, Newnham EA. Going rural: Qualitative perspectives on the role of place attachment in young people's intentions to return to the country. J Environ Psychol. 2021;73:101542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101542
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101542
• Sanders S. A brief guide to selecting and using pre-post assessments. Washington, DC: National Technical Assistance Center for the Education of Neglected or Delinquent Children and Youth; 2019.
• Siewert C, Barsukov P, Demyan S, Babenko A, Lashchinsky N, Smolentseva E. Teaching soil science and ecology in West Siberia: 17 years of field courses. Environ Educ Res. 2014;20:858-76. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.839778
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.839778
• Wright BD, Linacre JM, Gustafson JE, Martin-Lof P. Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Meas Trans. 1994;8:370-1.

Edited by

• Editor:
  José Miguel Reichert https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9943-2898 and Deborah de Oliveira https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7340-5792

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  16 Mar 2026
• Date of issue
  2026

History

• Received
  09 Apr 2025
• Accepted
  27 Aug 2025