Classroom Assessment Fairness Inventory (CAFI)

Mr. Chu selected group members based on mixed ability.

Mr. Chu did not provide students a choice in selecting their group members.

Mr. Chu allowed students' complaints over group dynamics.

Mr. Chu was not detailed in communicating how he will assess students' groupwork.

Mr. Chu gave the same grades to all group members.

Mr. Chu did not give individual grades for each group member based on their contributions and learning.

Mr. Chu did not justify his grades to students who appealed.

Mr. Ahmed held firm on the exam date.

Mr. Ahmed did not explicitly state what would be on the exam.

Mr. Ahmed included in the exam both easy to difficult questions.

Students with disabilities and English language learners received accommodations for the exam (e.g. more writing time).

Mr. Ahmed graded his students more leniently than other teachers.

Mr. Ahmed did not remove the two questions on the content that were not taught before.

Mr. Ahmed did not respond to students' complaints with a respectful tone.

Mr. Ahmed gave another exam opportunity to students who missed the exam.

Ms. Johnston was not transparent about her cheating policy at the beginning of the course.

Ms. Johnston did not give the student an opportunity to explain the reasons for cheating before making her decision to give zero.

Ms. Johnston gave a zero because cheating is unfair to other students' efforts.

Ms. Johnston gave a zero because cheating is ethically wrong.

Ms. Johnston gave a zero to signal that anyone who cheats should be punished for this action.

Ms. Johnston asked the student to leave the classroom in front of other students.

Ms. Johnston explained her cheating decision to the student.

Ms. Johnston did not forgive the student's cheating this time.

Ms. Mendes treated students respectfully during classroom assessment.

Ms. Mendes largely considered student achievement of learning objectives in her grading.

Ms. Mendes detailed her grading criteria, with test scores making up 70% of a student's grade.

Ms. Mendes communicated test results in one week after handing the test in.

Ms. Mendes would sometimes allow students to discuss their grades if there was enough time in class.

Ms. Mendes gave adequate justification for students who spoke up for their grades.

Ms. Mendes adjusted the grades of failing students with at-risk backgrounds.

Ms. Mendes considered students' future university admissions to adjust grades.

Ms. Mendes considered student misbehaviour (e.g. disruptions) in her grading.

Mr. Dembe provided a clear rubric for assessing students' essays.

Mr. Dembe provided feedback after four days of essay submissions.

Mr. Dembe gave students a chance to further discuss his feedback.