Da Corte, MiguelBaptista, Jorge2026-04-092026-04-092025http://hdl.handle.net/10400.1/28621Accurate text classification and placement remain challenges in U.S. higher education, with traditional automated systems like Accuplacer functioning as “black-box” models with limited assessment transparency. This study evaluates Large Language Models (LLMs) as complementary placement tools by comparing their classification performance against a human-rated gold standard and Accuplacer. A 450-essay corpus was classified using Claude, Gemini, GPT-3.5-turbo, and GPT-4o across four prompting strategies: Zero-shot, Few-shot, Enhanced, and Enhanced+ (definitions with examples). Two classification approaches were tested: (i) a 1-step, 3 class classification task, distinguishing DevEd Level 1, DevEd Level 2, and College-level texts in one single run; and (ii) a 2-step classification task, first separating College vs. Non-College texts before further classifying Non-College texts into DevEd sublevels. The results show that structured prompt refinement improves the precision of LLMs’ classification, with Claude Enhanced + achieving 62.22% precision (1 step) and Gemini Enhanced + reaching 69.33% (2 step), both surpassing Accuplacer (58.22%). Gemini and Claude also demonstrated strong correlation with human ratings, with Claude achieving the highest Pearson scores (ρ = 0.75; 1-step, ρ = 0.73; 2-step) vs. Accuplacer (ρ = 0.67). While LLMs show promise for DevEd placement, their precision remains a work in progress, highlighting the need for further refinement and safeguards to ensure ethical and equitable placement.engLarge language models (LLMs)Developmental education (DevEd)Writing assessmentText classificationEnglish writing proficiencyjournal article10.4230/OASIcs.SLATE.2025.1