Natural Language Processing for Aligning Readings with Learning Objectives and Assessing Topic Balance in Dental Education

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.

Educational NLP systems are typically evaluated using engagement metrics and satisfaction surveys, which are at best a proxy for meeting pedagogical goals. We introduce six computational metrics for automated evaluation of pedagogical alignment in student-AI dialogue. We validate our metrics through analysis of 12,650 messages across 500 conversations from four courses. Using our metrics, we identify a fundamental misalignment: educators design conversational tutors for sustained learning dialogue, but students mainly use them for answer-extraction. Deployment context is the strongest predictor of usage patterns, outweighing student preference or system design: when AI tools are optional, usage concentrates around deadlines; when integrated into course structure, students ask for solutions to verbatim assignment questions. Whole-dialogue evaluation misses these turn-by-turn patterns. Our metrics will enable researchers building educational dialogue systems to measure whether they are achieving their pedagogical goals.

Despite more than a decade of curriculum learning (CL) research in NLP, the field lacks a principled account of which difficulty function or scheduler to use for a given problem. To understand what has hindered progress towards this account, we propose a fine-grained taxonomy separating difficulty evaluation from training scheduling to enable systematic analysis of CL strategies. For difficulty evaluation, we distinguish attribution source and task dependence, revealing difficulty as a perspectival concept encoding different assumptions about what makes an instance hard to learn. For scheduling, we provide the first formalisation of CL schedulers in terms of expected training contribution, enabling comparison across implementations by introducing retention regimes and monotonicity properties. Applied in a dedicated analysis of CL works in NLP, our taxonomy reveals a systematic incomparability problem: prior works conflate distinct notions of difficulty and scheduling, often pursuing different objectives under the same CL label -- hindering comparison and the accumulation of a coherent evidence base. Beyond diagnosis, the taxonomy supports the design, analysis, and comparison of CL strategies, and motivates evaluation practices that disentangle the sources of observed improvement.