CourseGraph: Finding overlaps and differences in Computer Science courses across universities

Student mobility programs such as Erasmus+ enable students to take courses at other universities, broadening their academic and cultural horizons. However, this flexibility also leads to a practical challenge: ensuring that students do not take courses elsewhere that substantially overlap with courses in their home curriculum. In this work, we propose CourseGraph, a methodology that automates the evaluation of external courses based on insights obtained from the process followed by curriculum administrators when assessing courses for inclusion in a degree program. Course- Graph extracts information such as course titles, descriptions, and learning outcomes from the course webpage. Then, this information is represented semantically using a BERT-based language model, after which the pair-wise similarity between courses can be computed. This information is then used by a Random Forest classifier to determine whether a candidate course abroad overlaps with a course already contained in the student's curriculum. We evaluate CourseGraph using (1) the Computer Science program at Eindhoven University of Technology, which contains information about courses with substantial overlap, and (2) six approved international programs from students enrolled in the Computer Science program at Lund University, including the corresponding decisions made by a curriculum administrator. The experimental results indicate that CourseGraph provides an effective approach for identifying overlapping courses and supporting curriculum alignment across universities.

Evaluating and Improving Pedagogical Fit in LLM-Based AI Tutors with the Pedagogical Suitability Index

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as AI tutors, but a correct answer is not always a pedagogically appropriate one. In classroom learning, effective help depends not only on correctness, but also on whether a response matches the learner's current foundation, the course sequence, and the timing of concept introduction. Existing evaluations focus mainly on answer quality, leaving this instructional fit under-measured. We present the Pedagogical Suitability Index (PSI), a composite metric of six theory-informed sub-scores that evaluates how well LLM-generated tutoring responses align with learner readiness and curricular progression, and we further use PSI as a structured feedback signal for response improvement. We evaluate four LLM tutors (ChatGPT, Gemini, Gemma4, and Qwen3) across 240 scenario-based evaluations using paired standard and defective prompts, then apply a PSI-guided regeneration protocol to 62 weak-performing cases. Baseline differences across the four tested models were modest overall (PSI range: 0.557 to 0.638), and open-weight and closed models did not exhibit a clear separation in pedagogical fit. Under the tested prompt perturbations, overall PSI remained largely stable (Delta = -0.002), though sub-score trade-offs emerged. More importantly, PSI-guided feedback substantially improved weak-performing cases: 51 of 62 cases improved (82.3%). Focused manual evaluation of the 62 PSI-selected weak cases provides initial evidence that the identified weaknesses are instructionally meaningful and that many PSI-guided regenerations correspond to human-judged improvement. These results suggest that learner- and curriculum-aware alignment may matter more for effective tutoring than model category alone, and that such alignment is both measurable and improvable.

Measuring Curriculum Alignment across Topical Coverage, Competency, and Cognitive Depth: A Longitudinal Framework Applied to CS2013 and CS2023

Undergraduate computer science is governed by international curricular guidelines revised about once a decade, yet programs lack a reliable, reproducible way to measure how completely they cover the current guidelines and how that coverage shifts when the guidelines are restructured. We address this with a human-in-the-loop pipeline that measures a program's coverage of an external body of knowledge, applied longitudinally to one accredited BSc in Computer Science against Computer Science Curricula 2013 (CS2013) and 2023 (CS2023). The pipeline represents the program and each guideline as structured corpora, generates candidate course-to-knowledge-unit matches by semantic retrieval, and confirms them through human judgment under an explicit coverage definition. Of seven benchmarked retrievers, a reciprocal-rank-fusion ensemble was strongest, and a reputed long-context model underperformed a small sentence model, so retriever choice must be measured. Both maps were validated by an independent second rater (Cohen's kappa 0.64 for CS2023, 0.69 for CS2013). The program covers 49.7% of CS2023 and 50.9% of CS2013 knowledge units, near-constant across a decade. Extending the same retrieve-then-confirm design to competency articulation and cognitive depth shows that the program articulates the competency for ~88% of covered units under each guideline, yet delivers it at the recommended depth for 76% of present units under CS2023 against 95% under CS2013, a gap reflecting the newer guideline's raised expectations, not the program. The longitudinal comparison separates persistent structural gaps (parallel and distributed computing, foundations of programming languages, systems fundamentals), uncovered against both guidelines and ABET, from differences that reflect the standard's evolution. The instrument is reusable and available from the authors on request.

Large Language Models in K-12 Education: Alignment with State Curriculum Standards and Student Personas

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly popular in educational settings, they raise important questions about the ethical implications of their use. Publicly available online chatbots are quickly improving in capability and accuracy leading to more widespread use, including among students looking for help with their homework. This makes it crucial to consider whether these models are aligned with educational standards. Because curriculum standards in the United States are set at the state level, they differ significantly in required content, emphasis, and narrative focus. In this work, we develop an LLM-based pipeline to identify variations in U.S. History curricula across states and evaluate the extent to which different LLMs reflect these state-specific curricular differences. In addition, we conduct controlled experiments that vary user personas by stating user attributes such as geographic location, grade level, gender and race to evaluate the sensitivity of LLM responses to user characteristics. We find that while models are able to adjust their presentation of historical topics, these shifts may come from the perceived political leanings of states and do not necessarily reflect actual curriculum content. Additionally, models successfully adapt to a student's grade level while showing minimal sensitivity to race or gender, suggesting they are capable of useful adaptation to student personas with limited demographic bias. Together, these findings highlight potential risks that open access to LLM chatbots may cause to student learning outcomes stemming from misalignment with state curriculum standards and highlight the need for more robust alignment techniques.

An NLP-Driven Framework for Curriculum-Labor Market Alignment: Schema-Constrained LLM Extraction, ESCO-Anchored Semantic Matching, and Multi-Dimensional Gap Quantification

Schema-constrained information extraction from diverse educational and labor-market corpora remains an open challenge in natural language processing because existing pipelines rely primarily on lexical-surface methods that cannot recover implicit competencies, lack grounding in shared taxonomies, and provide no formal measures of extraction reliability or document-level completeness. To address these limitations, this paper proposes a four-stage NLP framework that combines (i) schema-constrained prompting of a two-model frontier-LLM ensemble against a JSON Schema-enforced seven-slot competency formalism, (ii) Sentence-BERT (SBERT) alignment of the extracted records against an eleven-domain ESCO v1.2.1 controlled vocabulary, (iii) a two-tier adjudication protocol that resolves inter-model disagreements, and (iv) a verification mechanism that combines per-slot Cohen's kappa, schema conformance, and document-level completeness audits. The framework is instantiated for a critical application in higher-education quality assurance, namely curriculum-labor market alignment for the ABET-accredited BSc Computer Science program at the United Arab Emirates University. The pipeline extracts 400 competency records from the 85-course 2025-2026 study plan and aligns them, under a five-scope analysis ranging from the computing core to a probability-weighted student trajectory, with 30 job postings (483 requirement clauses) at an SBERT cosine threshold of 0.50. The extractor achieves Cohen's kappa of 0.79 on the skill slot, with 100% schema conformance and 100% document-level completeness. The alignment surfaces interpretable supply-demand gaps of 25.0% in general and transversal skills, 13.8% in algorithms and computational theory, and 12.2% in software engineering and project management, with a near-zero 1.8% gap in artificial intelligence and data science despite 38.6% supply coverage.