Volume 6 / Issue 1 SPRING 2020

2 8 S p i r i t ua l i t y S t u d i e s 6 - 1 S p r i n g 2 0 2 0 3 Current Studies Based on previous conceptualization, in the 1st study we hypothesized that prosocial behavior (as a construct represent - ing the self-transcendent attitudes) and students’ evaluation of ethical education as school subject would predict higher score in noetic attitudes. In the 2nd study we’ve enlarged the model adding the teacher interpersonal behavior types, which we expected to increase the predicting power of the ethical education. For this second study we used a different scale for investigating the meaning in life that offers distinctions between cognitive, motivation, and affective dimensions of the meaning in life. 3.1 Method (the 1st study) 3.1.1 Participants Participants in the sample were part of the longitudinal research project focused on investigating and development of ethical education as school subject (since 2014 so far). In the current study, we examined those adolescents who participated in the second wave of the study (N=354, 49.4% female, 69.2% urban, Mage = 11.93; SD = 0.43). Students were 6th graders from 18 primary schools in western Slovakia. 3.1.2 Procedure Students were recruited through a cooperation between researchers and teachers participating in the longitudinal study. Ten teachers implemented the ethical education program with a total of 214 students. The rest of students (n=140, eight schools) was included as a control group. The battery of questionnaires was administered in classrooms by researcher. It took approximately 40 minutes to complete. Students experiencing the ethical education program achieved significantly higher score in salutogenic noo-dy - namics (t=4.123, p<0.001) and significantly lower score in pathogenic noo-dynamics (t=-3.834, p<0.001). 3.1.3 Measures Ethical Education Evaluation (EEE) . A 7-item questionnaire using Likert scale was designed to get simple feedback from those who enrolled on the ethical education lessons in that particular school-year, covering basic dimensions of their experience: cognitive (“I think the ethical education lessons are very useful, I’ve learn a lot in the last year”), affective (“they encourage me, I am in a good mood afterwards”), so - cial (“they make our team stronger”) and axiological (“they help me to change for the better”). Three items were negative (“the lessons are pointless, they are of no use to me”; “boring”; “frightening, I do not feel good during them”). The respondent could choose his/her answers on a scale from 1 (I disagree at all) to 4 (I agree at all). The reliability of posi - tive items was Cronb. alpha = .702, the reliability of negative items reached Cronb. alpha = .729 (N=178). Noo-Dynamics Test (T.N.-D.). In the first study quality meaning in life was operationalized by the noo-dynamics construct (Popielski 1991). The original test consists 100 items, which cover 36 dimensions grouped in four categories: noetic qualities , noetic temporality , noetic activities , and noetic attitudes . The questionnaire comprises two complementary parts: noo-salutogenic items (50), and noo-pathology items (50). For the revised version 36 items were selected covering two dimensions: noetic quality (freedom, responsibility, self-esteem, affirmation, trust and value orientation), and noetic activity (dialogical approach, creativity, acceptation, goodwill/kindness, promptitude for abnegation and respect for my own conscience/persuasion). E.g. the dimension “freedom” was formulated in the item “I think I can influence my destiny” (salutogenic item), or “In my life everything happens differ - ently from my plans” (noo-pathology item). The reliability of salutogenic items was Cronb. alpha = .852, and reliability of pathologic noo-dynamics items was Cronb. alpha = .789 (N=354). Prosocial Behaviour Scale (PROS). The questionnaire originally consists of 40 items representing ten various types of prosocial behavior in school (physical help, physical service etc.; Roche and Sol 1998). Based on factor analysis, which consistently showed one strongly loaded factor the number of items was reduced by half. E.g. the category “sharing” is represented by items like “I allow my schoolmates to use my things and toys”. 3.2 Results (the 1st study) Results of correlation analysis show that there is moderately strong positive correlation between student self-perceived prosocial behavior, peer-forms, teacher-forms, and salutogenic noo-dynamics, as well as the Ethical Education Evaluation (EEE). Linear regression shows that prosocial behavior signifi - cantly explains 16% of salutogenic noo-dynamics: R2 =.163, F(1, 340)=66.34, p<0.01; ß=.404. Adding EEE to the model,