The following 10 Anchor Papers represent a range of score points and are used in conjunction with the rubric to assess student responses.

Score for Anchor Paper #1: Rubric Score 1

Annotation: This response shows evidence of some understanding of the question. The Punnett square correctly represents a cross between a heterozygous parent (Gg) and a homozygous recessive parent (gg). The student does not address any other aspects of the question.

Score for Anchor Paper #2: Rubric Score 1

Annotation: This response shows some understanding of the question. The student provides only minimally effective supporting details. The Punnett square and the probability that the child will inherit galactosemia (50 percent) are correct.

Score for Anchor Paper #3: Rubric Score 1

Annotation: This response shows evidence of some understanding of the question. The genotype of the father is given (homozygous for the gene {known as galactosemia}), and the Punnett square is completed correctly. The correct probability that the child will inherit galactosemia (50% chance) is given and briefly explained (out of 4 children 2 would have galactosemia {homozygous for trait} and 2 would be normal but would carry the trait {heterozygous}). The response does not address bullet four.

Score for Anchor Paper #4: Rubric Score 2

Annotation: This response shows a basic understanding of the question. The genotype of the father is identified (gg), and the Punnett square is correct. The probability that the child will inherit galactosemia (50% chance) is given. Possible genotypes and phenotypes for the father's parents are stated (both heterozygous, one is heterozygous and the other had it, or both parents had it). The supporting details are adequate.

Score for Anchor Paper #5: Rubric Score 2

Annotation: This response demonstrates a basic understanding of the question. The student identifies the genotype of the father (gg) and correctly completes the Punnett square. The correct probability that the child will inherit the condition (50% chance) is stated, and one possible combination of the genotypes for the father's parents (Gg, gg) is given. The supporting details are adequate.

Score for Anchor Paper #6: Rubric Score 2

Annotation: This response shows a basic understanding of the question. The genotype of the father is identified and discussed (his genotype must be homozygous recessive for the trait because if he was heterozygous for the trait since the trait is recessive the father wouldn't have the disease). The Punnett square is correct. The probability that the child will inherit galactosemia (50% chance) is given. Two possible genotypes for the father's parents are provided (one of them could have been homozygous for the recessive allele and the other heterozygous; both parents may be heterozygous for the allele). Phenotypes of the parents are not provided. The supporting details are adequate.

Score for Anchor Paper #7: Rubric Score 3

Annotation: This response demonstrates a good understanding of the question. The student provides generally complete supporting details. The genotype of the father is identified (gg), and the Punnett square is correct. The correct probability that the child will inherit the disease (50% chance) is provided. Two possible genotypes for the father's parents are given (gg and gg; Gg and Gg) and explained (if one parent was GG the trait would not have been passed on). This explanation indicates a good understanding of how the disorder could have been passed on in the family.

Score for Anchor Paper #8: Rubric Score 3

Annotation: This response contains evidence of a good understanding. The genotype of the father (gg) is identified, and the Punnett square is correct. With the statement (the mother doesn't [have galactosemia]), the student shows an understanding that a heterozygous individual would not have the condition carried by a recessive allele. The probability that the child will inherit galactosemia is stated and described (50% chance…because when the genotypes of the parents were put in a punnett square, two of the possible child's genotypes had galactosemia and the other two did not). All three possible sets of genotypes for the father's parents are given (could have both been heterozygous, both homozygous recessive, or one parent heterozygous and the other homozygous recessive). No phenotypes for the father's parents are given and no explanation is offered.

Score for Anchor Paper #9: Rubric Score 3

Annotation: This response shows evidence of a good understanding of the question. The genotype of the father (gg) is identified, and the Punnett square is correct, including the labeled phenotypes for the parents and offspring. The correct probability that the child will inherit the disorder (50%) is given. All three possible genotypes and phenotypes for the father's parents are stated (both had galactosemia {gg and gg}, one could have had galactosemia and one could have been a carrier {Gg and gg}, or they both could have been carriers {Gg and Gg}). Scientific terminology (carrier) strengthens this response. More supporting details are needed for a higher score.

Score for Anchor Paper #10: Rubric Score 4

Annotation: This response shows a full and complete understanding of the question. The genotype of the father is identified (has the recessive alleles for galactosemia; genotype of gg), and the Punnett square is correct. The probability that the child will inherit the disorder is described (A Punnett square with him and a heterozygous mother yields 2 heterozygous children and two with galactosemia; a 50% chance). Two or three possible genotypes and phenotypes for the father's parents are described (had to either be heterozygous, Gg, with normal digestion, or recessive, gg, with galactosemia). The explanation of dominant and recessive traits indicates a synthesis of information (if either parent was homozygous dominant, they could not pass on one recessive trait needed from each parent). The use of scientific terminology enhances this response (homozygous dominant).

Additional Scored Student Responses