The following 8 Anchor Papers represent a range of score points and are used in conjunction with the rubrics to assess student responses.

Score for Anchor Paper #1: Rubric Score 1

Annotation: This response indicates little application of a reasonable strategy. The student provides a general description of the changes in family size as indicated by the graph ("...the # of family members went to a drastic decrease then assuringly went up to a slow increase"), but does not include the years the changes occurred or any values from the graph. An estimate of "about 3.275" for the family size in 1998 is outside the range indicated by the graph, and the explanation is incomplete. The student's response to the third part of the question is incorrect. This response demonstrates a minimal understanding and analysis of the problem.

Score for Anchor Paper #2: Rubric Score 1

Annotation: This response indicates little application of a reasonable strategy. The student provides a general description of the changes in family size as indicated by the graph ("It decreased, then went down befor 3.15 then slowly made a turn toward an incline.") but fails to include the years the changes occurred. No answer is given to the second and third parts of the question. This response demonstrates a minimal understanding and analysis of the problem.

Score for Anchor Paper #3: Rubric Score 2

Annotation: This response indicates an incomplete application of a reasonable strategy. The student describes the general change in family size as indicated by the graph for the years between 1972 and 1996 ("...began rather high then dropped at a non constant rate, but then began to increase again"), but fails to provide the specific years the changes occurred. The student's estimate of the average family size in 1998 is incorrect. The explanation reveals that the student inappropriately "rounded 3.2 to 3." The student indicates that it would not be reasonable to use this curve of best fit. The justification supports the solution ("...there could become a rapid increase before 2010 and then decrease again or vice versa...Plus there isn't a constant rate of change so that we can predict"). This response demonstrates a conceptual understanding and analysis of the problem.

Score for Anchor Paper #4: Rubric Score 2

Annotation: This response indicates an incomplete application of a reasonable strategy. Although the year 1990 rather than 1992 is a more accurate choice for the year the decrease leveled off, the student does provide a correct description of the changes in family size indicated by the graph. The student's analysis of the graph correctly identifies "3.23" as the average family size in 1998. The explanation is incomplete. ("I just looked at the graph to determine my answer.") The student indicates that it would not be reasonable to use this curve of best fit. The justification is plausible, though not well developed. (..."It could decrease or increase we never know.") This response demonstrates a conceptual understanding and analysis of the problem.

Score for Anchor Paper #5: Rubric Score 3

Annotation: This response indicates application of a reasonable strategy that leads to a correct solution. The student describes the overall change in family size by finding the difference between the family size in 1972 and 1996 ("The change is .3 down from 72' to 96.'"), but does not address the decrease and the increase in size or the years of occurrence. The student's analysis of the graph correctly identifies "3.225" as the average family size in 1998. The explanation is fully developed. ("I looked where the curve stopped at 1998 then looked at the Average Number of people in a family and it said 3.225 because it is half of 3.25 and a quarter of 3.3.") The student indicates that it would not be reasonable to use this curve of best fit and then provides a complete justification. This response demonstrates a clear understanding and analysis of the problem.

Score for Anchor Paper #6: Rubric Score 3

Annotation: This response indicates application of a reasonable strategy that leads to a correct solution. The student describes the overall change in family size by finding the difference between the years 1972 and 1996 ("...has gone down about .3 people from 1972 through 1996"), but does not address the decrease and the increase in size or the years of occurrence. The student does analyze the graph and correctly identify "about 3.225" as the average family size in 1998. The explanation is generally well developed. ("When the curve reaches 1998, it is almost right between 3.2 and 3.25. The average of these 2 numbers is 3.2 and 3.25.") The student indicates that it would not be reasonable to use this curve of best fit. The generally well developed justification supports the solution ("...the curve may continue to go up between now and then or it may go down"). This response demonstrates a clear understanding and analysis of the problem.

Score for Anchor Paper #7: Rubric Score 4

Annotation: This response indicates application of a reasonable strategy that leads to a correct solution within the context of the problem. The description of the changes in family size that are indicated by the graph for the years between 1972 and 1996 is fully developed, clearly presented, and supports the solution. The student's analysis of the graph correctly identifies "3.23" as the average family size in 1998. The fully developed explanation supports the solution ("...the curve is still increasing, and the intersection of the '98 line and curve are on the y- axis of 3.23"). The student indicates that it would not be reasonable to use this curve of best fit. The justification is developed and clearly presented. ("From 1996 – 2010 is a span of 14 years. Even though the curve was increasing at 1998, it could still decrease in only a few years. It doesn't take much time for a thing like the average family size to change.") This response demonstrates a complete understanding and analysis of the problem.

Score for Anchor Paper #8: Rubric Score 4

Annotation: This response indicates application of a reasonable strategy that leads to a correct solution within the context of the problem. The description of the changes in family size for the years between 1972 and 1996 is fully developed, clearly presented, and supports the solution. The student's analysis of the graph correctly identifies "appx. 3.225" as the average family size in 1998. The fully developed explanation supports the solution ("...going along the x-axis until I got to 1998. From there I went up until I hit the curve of best fit. Then I went left on the grid line until I hit the y-axis. I read the value, and rounded to about where the curve was touching). The student also provides an additional explanation ("Another way to get 3.225 is to add 3.2 + 3.25 {where the line was directly in the middle of these points} and then divide by two"). The student indicates that it would not be reasonable to use this curve of best fit. The justification is fully developed and clearly presented. The student gives reasons the graph would be inappropriate for the year 2010. ("1. The graph would be too out-of-date. 2. The graph doesn't allow for future changes that could disrupt its pattern. 3. The graph collects data from years that are too far from 2010 to be able to predict a trend. 4. The graph collects most of its data from 1990-1996, only 6 years, and, therefore, not enough data is given to correctly conclude a trend.") This response demonstrates a complete understanding and analysis of the problem.

Additional Scored Student Responses