Chapter 2 Review Test 5th Grade Answer Key

[Elly Garnand]

As of 2018-19, only the grades 5 and 8 Statewide Science Assessment is still being administered. For information about those assessments, visit the Statewide Science Assessment page of the FDOE website. Practice materials for the Florida Standards Assessments (FSA) are available on the FSA Portal.

The FCAT 2.0 Sample Test and Answer Key Books were produced to prepare students to take the tests in mathematics (grades 3-8) and reading (grades 3-10). Sample Test and Answer Key Books for grades 5 and 8 science are available on the Statewide Science Assessment page. The Sample Question Books are designed to help students become familiar with FCAT 2.0 questions and to offer students practice answering questions in different formats. The Sample Answer Keys are designed to be used by teachers to explain to students the answers and solutions to the questions in the Sample Question Books and to identify which Next Generation Sunshine State Standards benchmark is being tested by the question.

Get creative and ask students to devise pictures or symbols to help them remember the given term or topic. Throughout the year, ask students to take notes on note cards so that the flashcards are ready to use.

Allow students to create questions and answers to challenge classmates. One variation of this activity is to assign a certain number of questions on a given topic to be added to a collaborative project. Use a Google doc template to go paperless and provide an opportunity for collaboration.

Create interesting graphic organizers to help students organize important information with more aesthetic appeal. Sometimes all it takes is a simple stray-from-the-norm approach to help engage students.

Just like students love the game show concept, they never seem to turn down a chance to write on the board. Write a topic, concept, or vocabulary word on an index card. Students work as teams to draw hints on the board without the use of spoken or written words.

Allow students to do the instructing. Assign one topic to a single student, pair, or group. Set the standards for the presentation such as the requirement of a visual or a certain time limit for presenting. As the audience, students can take notes on the lesson so they receive information on all of the assigned topics.

Give students a list of review topics and send them to their notebooks to seek the answers. This allows for review and also helps to teach the value of keeping good notes. An alternative would be to allow students to partner up or work in teams.

The graphic organizer meets origami. Foldables are a hands-on way for students to organize information, and there are endless ways to manipulate paper. In a basic sense, foldables require students to put a general topic on the outside and more detailed information on the inside. They are great with any subject.

Break review into sections such as time periods, chapters, or units. Provide review questions and allow students a certain amount of time at each station. Stations could include helpful materials such as notes, books, articles, etc.

This activity can be used with the whole class but probably works better with small groups. In any case, you need two groups, and each group is assigned either X or O. Draw a tic-tac-toe board on paper or the board. Students earn the ability to place their X or O marker on the game board if they answer a teacher-read question correctly.

Cochrane Reviews include an assessment of the risk of bias in each included study (see Chapter 7 for a general discussion of this topic). When randomized trials are included, the recommended tool is the revised version of the Cochrane tool, known as RoB 2, described in this chapter. The RoB 2 tool provides a framework for assessing the risk of bias in a single result (an estimate of the effect of an experimental intervention compared with a comparator intervention on a particular outcome) from any type of randomized trial.

The RoB 2 tool is structured into domains through which bias might be introduced into the result. These domains were identified based on both empirical evidence and theoretical considerations. This chapter summarizes the main features of RoB 2 applied to individually randomized parallel-group trials. It describes the process of undertaking an assessment using the RoB 2 tool, summarizes the important issues for each domain of bias, and ends with a list of the key differences between RoB 2 and the earlier version of the tool. Variants of the RoB 2 tool specific to cluster-randomized trials and crossover trials are summarized in Chapter 23.

The full guidance document for the RoB 2 tool is available at www.riskofbias.info: it summarizes the empirical evidence underlying the tool and provides detailed explanations of the concepts covered and guidance on implementation.

If some patients do not receive their assigned intervention or deviate from the assigned intervention after baseline, these effects will differ, and will each be of interest. For example, the estimated effect of assignment to intervention would be the most appropriate to inform a health policy question about whether to recommend an intervention in a particular health system (e.g. whether to instigate a screening programme, or whether to prescribe a new cholesterol-lowering drug), whereas the estimated effect of adhering to the intervention as specified in the trial protocol would be the most appropriate to inform a care decision by an individual patient (e.g. whether to be screened, or whether to take the new drug). Review authors should define the intervention effect in which they are interested, and apply the risk-of-bias tool appropriately to this effect.

The effect of principal interest should be specified in the review protocol: most systematic reviews are likely to address the question of assignment rather than adherence to intervention. On occasion, review authors may be interested in both effects of interest.

Trial authors often estimate the effect of intervention using more than one approach. They may not explain the reasons for their choice of analysis approach, or whether their aim is to estimate the effect of assignment or adherence to intervention. We recommend that when the effect of interest is that of assignment to intervention, the trial result included in meta-analyses, and assessed for risk of bias, should be chosen according to the following order of preference:

The signalling questions aim to provide a structured approach to eliciting information relevant to an assessment of risk of bias. They seek to be reasonably factual in nature, but some may require a degree of judgement. The response options are:

Signalling questions should be answered independently: the answer to one question should not affect answers to other questions in the same or other domains other than through determining which subsequent questions are answered.

A free text box alongside the signalling questions and judgements provides space for review authors to present supporting information for each response. In some instances, when the same information is likely to be used to answer more than one question, one text box covers more than one signalling question. Brief, direct quotations from the text of the study report should be used whenever possible. It is important that reasons are provided for any judgements that do not follow the algorithms. The tool also provides space to indicate all the sources of information about the study obtained to inform the judgements (e.g. published papers, trial registry entries, additional information from the study authors).

RoB 2 includes optional judgements of the direction of the bias for each domain and overall. For some domains, the bias is most easily thought of as being towards or away from the null. For example, high levels of switching of participants from their assigned intervention to the other intervention may have the effect of reducing the observed difference between the groups, leading to the estimated effect of adhering to intervention (see Section 8.2.2) being biased towards the null. For other domains, the bias is likely to favour one of the interventions being compared, implying an increase or decrease in the effect estimate depending on which intervention is favoured. Examples include manipulation of the randomization process, awareness of interventions received influencing the outcome assessment and selective reporting of results. If review authors do not have a clear rationale for judging the likely direction of the bias, they should not guess it and can leave this response blank.

The response options for an overall risk-of-bias judgement are the same as for individual domains. Table 8.2.b shows the approach to mapping risk-of-bias judgements within domains to an overall judgement for the outcome.

Once an overall judgement has been reached for an individual trial result, this information will need to be presented in the review and reflected in the analysis and conclusions. For discussion of the presentation of risk-of-bias assessments and how they can be incorporated into analyses, see Chapter 7. Risk-of-bias assessments also feed into one domain of the GRADE approach for assessing certainty of a body of evidence, as discussed in Chapter 14.

To randomize participants into a study, an allocation sequence that specifies how participants will be assigned to interventions is generated, based on a process that includes an element of chance. We call this allocation sequence generation. Subsequently, steps must be taken to prevent participants or trial personnel from knowing the forthcoming allocations until after recruitment has been confirmed. This process is often termed allocation sequence concealment.

Some review authors confuse allocation sequence concealment with blinding of assigned interventions during the trial. Allocation sequence concealment seeks to prevent bias in intervention assignment by preventing trial personnel and participants from knowing the allocation sequence before and until assignment. It can always be successfully implemented, regardless of the study design or clinical area (Schulz et al 1995, Jni et al 2001). In contrast, blinding seeks to prevent bias after assignment (Jni et al 2001, Schulz et al 2002) and cannot always be implemented. This is often the situation, for example, in trials comparing surgical with non-surgical interventions.

c80f0f1006