Clinical vignettes are essential educational tools in speech-language pathology (SLP), but manual creation is time-intensive. While general-purpose large language models (LLMs) can generate text, they lack domain-specific knowledge, leading to hallucinations and requiring extensive expert revision. This study presents a proof-of-concept system integrating retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) with curated knowledge bases to generate pediatric SLP case materials. A multi-model RAG-based system was prototyped integrating curated domain knowledge with engineered prompt templates, supporting five commercial (GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Gemini 2.5 Pro) and open-source (Llama 3.2, Qwen 2.5-7B) LLMs. Seven test scenarios spanning diverse disorder types and grade levels were systematically designed. Generated cases underwent automated quality assessment using a multi-dimensional rubric evaluating structural completeness, internal consistency, clinical appropriateness, and IEP goal/session note quality. This proof-of-concept demonstrates technical feasibility for RAG-augmented generation of pediatric SLP vignettes. Commercial models showed marginal quality advantages, but open-source alternatives achieved acceptable performance, suggesting potential for privacy-preserving institutional deployment. Integration of curated knowledge bases enabled content generation aligned with professional guidelines. Extensive validation through expert review, student pilot testing, and psychometric evaluation is required before educational or research implementation. Future applications may extend to clinical decision support, automated IEP goal generation, and clinical reflection training.

Large language models (LLMs) are transforming education by answering questions, explaining complex concepts, and generating content across a wide range of subjects. Despite strong performance on academic benchmarks, they often fail to tailor responses to students' grade levels. This is a critical need in K-12 education, where age-appropriate vocabulary and explanation are essential for effective learning. Existing models frequently produce outputs that are too advanced or vague for younger learners, and there are no standardized benchmarks to evaluate their ability to adjust across cognitive and developmental stages. To address this gap, we introduce EduAdapt, a benchmark of nearly 48k grade-labeled QA pairs across nine science subjects, spanning Grades 1-12 and grouped into four grade levels. We evaluate a diverse set of open-source LLMs on EduAdapt and find that while larger models generally perform better, they still struggle with generating suitable responses for early-grade students (Grades 1-5). Our work presents the first dataset and evaluation framework for assessing grade-level adaptability in LLMs, aiming to foster more developmentally aligned educational AI systems through better training and prompting strategies. EduAdapt code and datasets are publicly available at https://github.com/NaumanNaeem/EduAdapt.

With the rapid progress of Large Language Models (LLMs), the general public now has easy and affordable access to applications capable of answering most health-related questions in a personalized manner. These LLMs are increasingly proving to be competitive, and now even surpass professionals in some medical capabilities. They hold particular promise in low-resource settings, considering they provide the possibility of widely accessible, quasi-free healthcare support. However, evaluations that fuel these motivations highly lack insights into the social nature of healthcare, oblivious to health disparities between social groups and to how bias may translate into LLM-generated medical advice and impact users. We provide an exploratory analysis of LLM answers to a series of medical questions spanning key clinical domains, where we simulate these questions being asked by several patient profiles that vary in sex, age range, and ethnicity. By comparing natural language features of the generated responses, we show that, when LLMs are used for medical advice generation, they generate responses that systematically differ between social groups. In particular, Indigenous and intersex patients receive advice that is less readable and more complex. We observe these trends amplify when intersectional groups are considered. Considering the increasing trust individuals place in these models, we argue for higher AI literacy and for the urgent need for investigation and mitigation by AI developers to ensure these systemic differences are diminished and do not translate to unjust patient support. Our code is publicly available on GitHub.

Math word problems (MWPs) are critical K-12 educational tools, and customizing them to students' interests and ability levels can increase learning outcomes. However, teachers struggle to find time to customize MWPs for each student given large class sizes and increasing burnout. We propose that LLMs can support math education by generating MWPs customized to student interests and math education standards. To this end, we use a joint human expert-LLM judge approach to evaluate over 11,000 MWPs generated by open and closed LLMs and develop the first teacher-annotated dataset for standards-aligned educational MWP generation. We show the value of our data by using it to train a 12B open model that matches the performance of larger and more capable open models. We also use our teacher-annotated data to train a text classifier that enables a 30B open LLM to outperform existing closed baselines without any training. Next, we show our models' MWPs are more similar to human-written MWPs than those from existing models. We conclude by conducting the first study of customized LLM-generated MWPs with grade school students, finding they perform similarly on our models' MWPs relative to human-written MWPs but consistently prefer our customized MWPs.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as proxy students in the development of Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITSs) and in piloting test questions. However, to what extent these proxy students accurately emulate the behavior and characteristics of real students remains an open question. To investigate this, we collected a dataset of 489 items from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), covering mathematics and reading comprehension in grades 4, 8, and 12. We then apply an Item Response Theory (IRT) model to position 11 diverse and state-of-the-art LLMs on the same ability scale as real student populations. Our findings reveal that, without guidance, strong general-purpose models consistently outperform the average student at every grade, while weaker or domain-mismatched models may align incidentally. Using grade-enforcement prompts changes models' performance, but whether they align with the average grade-level student remains highly model- and prompt-specific: no evaluated model-prompt pair fits the bill across subjects and grades, underscoring the need for new training and evaluation strategies. We conclude by providing guidelines for the selection of viable proxies based on our findings.

We introduce CLEAR-3K, a dataset of 3,000 assertion-reasoning questions designed to evaluate whether language models can determine if one statement causally explains another. Each question present an assertion-reason pair and challenge language models to distinguish between semantic relatedness and genuine causal explanatory relationships. Through comprehensive evaluation of 21 state-of-the-art language models (ranging from 0.5B to 72B parameters), we identify two fundamental findings. First, language models frequently confuse semantic similarity with causality, relying on lexical and semantic overlap instead of inferring actual causal explanatory relationships. Second, as parameter size increases, models tend to shift from being overly skeptical about causal relationships to being excessively permissive in accepting them. Despite this shift, performance measured by the Matthews Correlation Coefficient plateaus at just 0.55, even for the best-performing models.Hence, CLEAR-3K provides a crucial benchmark for developing and evaluating genuine causal reasoning in language models, which is an essential capability for applications that require accurate assessment of causal relationships.

While Generative AI has demonstrated strong potential and versatility in content generation, its application to educational contexts presents several challenges. Models often fail to align with curriculum standards and maintain grade-appropriate reading levels consistently. Furthermore, STEM education poses additional challenges in balancing scientific explanations with everyday language when introducing complex and abstract ideas and phenomena to younger students. In this work, we propose COGENT, a curriculum-oriented framework for generating grade-appropriate educational content. We incorporate three curriculum components (science concepts, core ideas, and learning objectives), control readability through length, vocabulary, and sentence complexity, and adopt a ``wonder-based'' approach to increase student engagement and interest. We conduct a multi-dimensional evaluation via both LLM-as-a-judge and human expert analysis. Experimental results show that COGENT consistently produces grade-appropriate passages that are comparable or superior to human references. Our work establishes a viable approach for scaling adaptive and high-quality learning resources.

Research on holistic Automated Essay Scoring (AES) is long-dated; yet, there is a notable lack of attention for assessing essays according to individual traits. In this work, we propose TRATES, a novel trait-specific and rubric-based cross-prompt AES framework that is generic yet specific to the underlying trait. The framework leverages a Large Language Model (LLM) that utilizes the trait grading rubrics to generate trait-specific features (represented by assessment questions), then assesses those features given an essay. The trait-specific features are eventually combined with generic writing-quality and prompt-specific features to train a simple classical regression model that predicts trait scores of essays from an unseen prompt. Experiments show that TRATES achieves a new state-of-the-art performance across all traits on a widely-used dataset, with the generated LLM-based features being the most significant.

As artificial intelligence (AI) advances in reasoning capabilities, most recently with the emergence of Large Reasoning Models (LRMs), understanding how children conceptualize AI's reasoning processes becomes critical for fostering AI literacy. While one of the "Five Big Ideas" in AI education highlights reasoning algorithms as central to AI decision-making, less is known about children's mental models in this area. Through a two-phase approach, consisting of a co-design session with 8 children followed by a field study with 106 children (grades 3-8), we identified three models of AI reasoning: Deductive, Inductive, and Inherent. Our findings reveal that younger children (grades 3-5) often attribute AI's reasoning to inherent intelligence, while older children (grades 6-8) recognize AI as a pattern recognizer. We highlight three tensions that surfaced in children's understanding of AI reasoning and conclude with implications for scaffolding AI curricula and designing explainable AI tools.

The use of generative AI (GAI) among university students is rapidly increasing, yet empirical research on students' GAI use and the factors influencing it remains limited. To address this gap, we surveyed 363 undergraduate and graduate students in the United States, examining their GAI usage and how it relates to demographic variables and personality traits based on the Big Five model (i.e., extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability, and intellect/imagination). Our findings reveal: (a) Students in higher academic years are more inclined to use GAI and prefer it over traditional resources. (b) Non-native English speakers use and adopt GAI more readily than native speakers. (c) Compared to White, Asian students report higher GAI usage, perceive greater academic benefits, and express a stronger preference for it. Similarly, Black students report a more positive impact of GAI on their academic performance. Personality traits also play a significant role in shaping perceptions and usage of GAI. After controlling demographic factors, we found that personality still significantly predicts GAI use and attitudes: (a) Students with higher conscientiousness use GAI less. (b) Students who are higher in agreeableness perceive a less positive impact of GAI on academic performance and express more ethical concerns about using it for academic work. (c) Students with higher emotional stability report a more positive impact of GAI on learning and fewer concerns about its academic use. (d) Students with higher extraversion show a stronger preference for GAI over traditional resources. (e) Students with higher intellect/imagination tend to prefer traditional resources. These insights highlight the need for universities to provide personalized guidance to ensure students use GAI effectively, ethically, and equitably in their academic pursuits.