Greek religious-education AI survey highlights limits of post-training agreement

A new paper about an earlier survey

An October 22 paper in the Journal of Religious Education offers a small, carefully bounded picture of how Greek teachers viewed AI after training. Ioanna Komninou surveyed 54 voluntary participants in the religious-education module of SUB8, formally “SUB.8 Teacher Training Actions,” implemented by Greece’s Institute of Educational Policy. Most responses arrived April 8–22, 2026.

Respondents generally welcomed help with preparation and adapting lessons. Forty-six agreed or strongly agreed that AI needed critical pedagogical management. They were more divided over whether it produced shallow learning.

The study describes teachers working within an Orthodox-oriented curriculum, not their personal denominational affiliations, which were not collected. The sample is not nationally representative. It contains self-reports, no before-and-after comparison and no classroom observation. Source: link.springer.com

What agreement can establish

The paper cites Komninou’s own unpublished SUB8 training material when discussing the course’s theological framing. Because participants had just encountered that framing, agreement cannot independently corroborate the theological position, the author cautions. Nor does the design establish that training changed classroom practice.

For a church or school commissioning training, this makes the survey question itself worth examining. Asking whether participants accept a principle, whether they feel confident, and whether they can apply the principle produces three different kinds of evidence. A positive answer to the first two should not quietly become an answer to the third.

Ask for an explanation, not an echo

UNESCO’s 2024 teacher competency framework provides an older reference for planning such an assessment. It identifies 15 competencies across human-centred thinking, ethics, AI foundations and applications, pedagogy, and professional learning. Its progression runs from acquiring understanding through deepening practice to creating approaches. UNESCO describes it as guidance for training and assessment, not a certification of the Greek programme. Source: unesco.org

One hypothetical assessment could give a teacher a generated religious explanation containing a genuine quotation followed by an unsupported interpretation. Ask the teacher to distinguish the two, identify a suitable source and explain what should change before pupils see it. Then present a different example later. This is an editorial proposal, not an exercise evaluated in the study.

Such a check should assess the skill the course claims to teach, rather than reward repeating the trainer’s preferred words. It should also make room for a well-supported disagreement. For Christian educators, that is a practical way to respect theological judgment: ask people to explain their reasoning, not merely signal agreement with an institution’s AI position.