Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated potential in educational applications, yet their capacity to accurately assess the cognitive alignment of reading materials with students' developmental stages remains insufficiently explored. This gap is particularly critical given the foundational educational principle of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), which emphasizes the need to match learning resources with Students' Cognitive Abilities (SCA). Despite the importance of this alignment, there is a notable absence of comprehensive studies investigating LLMs' ability to evaluate reading comprehension difficulty across different student age groups, especially in the context of Chinese language education. To fill this gap, we introduce ZPD-SCA, a novel benchmark specifically designed to assess stage-level Chinese reading comprehension difficulty. The benchmark is annotated by 60 Special Grade teachers, a group that represents the top 0.15% of all in-service teachers nationwide. Experimental results reveal that LLMs perform poorly in zero-shot learning scenarios, with Qwen-max and GLM even falling below the probability of random guessing. When provided with in-context examples, LLMs performance improves substantially, with some models achieving nearly double the accuracy of their zero-shot baselines. These results reveal that LLMs possess emerging abilities to assess reading difficulty, while also exposing limitations in their current training for educationally aligned judgment. Notably, even the best-performing models display systematic directional biases, suggesting difficulties in accurately aligning material difficulty with SCA. Furthermore, significant variations in model performance across different genres underscore the complexity of task. We envision that ZPD-SCA can provide a foundation for evaluating and improving LLMs in cognitively aligned educational applications.

Determining the difficulty of a text involves assessing various textual features that may impact the reader's text comprehension, yet current research in Vietnamese has only focused on statistical features. This paper introduces a new approach that integrates statistical and semantic approaches to assessing text readability. Our research utilized three distinct datasets: the Vietnamese Text Readability Dataset (ViRead), OneStopEnglish, and RACE, with the latter two translated into Vietnamese. Advanced semantic analysis methods were employed for the semantic aspect using state-of-the-art language models such as PhoBERT, ViDeBERTa, and ViBERT. In addition, statistical methods were incorporated to extract syntactic and lexical features of the text. We conducted experiments using various machine learning models, including Support Vector Machine (SVM), Random Forest, and Extra Trees and evaluated their performance using accuracy and F1 score metrics. Our results indicate that a joint approach that combines semantic and statistical features significantly enhances the accuracy of readability classification compared to using each method in isolation. The current study emphasizes the importance of considering both statistical and semantic aspects for a more accurate assessment of text difficulty in Vietnamese. This contribution to the field provides insights into the adaptability of advanced language models in the context of Vietnamese text readability. It lays the groundwork for future research in this area.

Using large language models (LLMs) for educational applications like dialogue-based teaching is a hot topic. Effective teaching, however, requires teachers to adapt the difficulty of content and explanations to the education level of their students. Even the best LLMs today struggle to do this well. If we want to improve LLMs on this adaptation task, we need to be able to measure adaptation success reliably. However, current Static metrics for text difficulty, like the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score, are known to be crude and brittle. We, therefore, introduce and evaluate a new set of Prompt-based metrics for text difficulty. Based on a user study, we create Prompt-based metrics as inputs for LLMs. They leverage LLM's general language understanding capabilities to capture more abstract and complex features than Static metrics. Regression experiments show that adding our Prompt-based metrics significantly improves text difficulty classification over Static metrics alone. Our results demonstrate the promise of using LLMs to evaluate text adaptation to different education levels.

Health literacy is crucial to supporting good health and is a major national goal. Audio delivery of information is becoming more popular for informing oneself. In this study, we evaluate the effect of audio enhancements in the form of information emphasis and pauses with health texts of varying difficulty and we measure health information comprehension and retention. We produced audio snippets from difficult and easy text and conducted the study on Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT). Our findings suggest that emphasis matters for both information comprehension and retention. When there is no added pause, emphasizing significant information can lower the perceived difficulty for difficult and easy texts. Comprehension is higher (54%) with correctly placed emphasis for the difficult texts compared to not adding emphasis (50%). Adding a pause lowers perceived difficulty and can improve retention but adversely affects information comprehension.

Customers who reach out for customer service support may face a range of issues that vary in complexity. Routing high-complexity contacts to junior agents can lead to multiple transfers or repeated contacts, while directing low-complexity contacts to senior agents can strain their capacity to assist customers who need professional help. To tackle this, a machine learning model that accurately predicts the complexity of customer issues is highly desirable. However, defining the complexity of a contact is a difficult task as it is a highly abstract concept. While consensus-based data annotation by experienced agents is a possible solution, it is time-consuming and costly. To overcome these challenges, we have developed a novel machine learning approach to define contact complexity. Instead of relying on human annotation, we trained an AI expert model to mimic the behavior of agents and evaluate each contact's complexity based on how the AI expert responds. If the AI expert is uncertain or lacks the skills to comprehend the contact transcript, it is considered a high-complexity contact. Our method has proven to be reliable, scalable, and cost-effective based on the collected data.

Education that suits the individual learning level is necessary to improve students' understanding. The first step in achieving this purpose by using large language models (LLMs) is to adjust the textual difficulty of the response to students. This work analyzes how LLMs can implicitly adjust text difficulty between user input and its generated text. To conduct the experiments, we created a new dataset from Stack-Overflow to explore the performance of question-answering-based conversation. Experimental results on the Stack-Overflow dataset and the TSCC dataset, including multi-turn conversation show that LLMs can implicitly handle text difficulty between user input and its generated response. We also observed that some LLMs can surpass humans in handling text difficulty and the importance of instruction-tuning.

Given a task, human learns from easy to hard, whereas the model learns randomly. Undeniably, difficulty insensitive learning leads to great success in NLP, but little attention has been paid to the effect of text difficulty in NLP. In this research, we propose the Human Learning Matching Index (HLM Index) to investigate the effect of text difficulty. Experiment results show: (1) LSTM has more human-like learning behavior than BERT. (2) UID-SuperLinear gives the best evaluation of text difficulty among four text difficulty criteria. (3) Among nine tasks, some tasks' performance is related to text difficulty, whereas some are not. (4) Model trained on easy data performs best in easy and medium data, whereas trains on a hard level only perform well on hard data. (5) Training the model from easy to hard leads to fast convergence.