This study describes a pilot annotation task designed to capture orthographic, grammatical, lexical, semantic, and discursive patterns exhibited by college native English speakers participating in developmental education (DevEd) courses. The paper introduces an annotation scheme developed by two linguists aiming at pinpointing linguistic challenges that hinder effective written communication. The scheme builds upon patterns supported by the literature, which are known as predictors of student placement in DevEd courses and English proficiency levels. Other novel, multilayered, linguistic aspects that the literature has not yet explored are also presented. The scheme and its primary categories are succinctly presented and justified. Two trained annotators used this scheme to annotate a sample of 103 text units (3 during the training phase and 100 during the annotation task proper). Texts were randomly selected from a population of 290 community college intending students. An in-depth quality assurance inspection was conducted to assess tagging consistency between annotators and to discern (and address) annotation inaccuracies. Krippendorff’s Alpha (K-alpha) interrater reliability coefficients were calculated, revealing a K-alpha score of k=0.40, which corresponds to a moderate level of agreement, deemed adequate for the complexity and length of the annotation task.

Developmental Education (DevEd) courses align students’ college-readiness skills with higher education literacy demands. These courses often use automated assessment tools like Accuplacer for student placement. Existing literature raises concerns about these exams’ accuracy and placement precision due to their narrow representation of the writing process. These concerns warrant further attention within the domain of automatic placement systems, particularly in the establishment of a reference corpus of annotated essays for these systems’ machine/deep learning. This study aims at an enhanced annotation procedure to assess college students’ writing patterns more accurately. It examines the efficacy of machine-learning-based DevEd placement, contrasting Accuplacer’s classification of 100 college-intending students’ essays into two levels (Level 1 and 2) against that of 6 human raters. The classification task encompassed the assessment of the 6 textual criteria currently used by Accuplacer: mechanical conventions, sentence variety & style, idea development & support, organization & structure, purpose & focus, and critical thinking. Results revealed low inter-rater agreement, both on the individual criteria and the overall classification, suggesting human assessment of writing proficiency can be inconsistent in this context. To achieve a more accurate determination of writing proficiency and improve DevEd placement, more robust classification methods are thus required.