What type of study is this?

This is a Literature Review study.

October 16, 2025

Suggestions for South Korea’s Computer-Based NAEA through State Level Educational Achievement Assessments from USA

Puntos clave

The assessment methods in the US, such as STAAR and FAST, differ significantly from Korea's NAEA, particularly in technology use.
Diverse technology-enhanced item types and personalized feedback in US assessments promote student agency, an area for Korea's NAEA to improve.
Clear guidelines for exceptional testing situations in the US provide a framework that Korea could adopt for better assessment flexibility.
Incorporating informed technology use in Korea's NAEA could enhance student engagement and self-directed learning through effective feedback.

Resumen

Purpose This study aims to compare and analyze cases of computer-based testing (CBT) in Korea and the United States to provide insights and suggest directions for improving the implementation of Korea’s National Assessment of Educational Achievement (NAEA). Methods To this end, official reports and related literature from both domestic and international sources were reviewed to examine and compare the structure, administration, implementation, and reporting practices of the STAAR and FAST assessments. Results The STAAR and FAST assessments in the United States showed notable differences from Korea’s NAEA in terms of the diversity of technology-enhanced item types, clear guidelines for exceptional testing situations, and detailed feedback based on student growth. In particular, the reporting and utilization of assessment results—such as comparisons with previous scores, personalized learning strategies and material recommendations, and real-life contextual feedback—were found to be effective in enhancing students’ engagement and promoting self-directed learning. Conclusion To incorporate the strengths of STAAR and FAST into Korea’s national assessments, several practical considerations are necessary. First, when introducing new technology-enhanced item types, careful attention must be paid to item complexity, appropriate difficulty adjustment, and contextual relevance. Second, clear contingency guidelines should be established for students unable to take the CBT as scheduled, including alternatives such as remote or paper-based testing. Third, in the implementation of the customized achievement assessment, personalized feedback should be actively provided, with caution to avoid excessive ranking or stigmatization.

Me gusta

Guardar