Metacomprehension and cognitive vigilance. A multi-teachers experiment in last year of secondary school

A team of 2 researchers and 4 sedondary teachers (in 4 domains) organized SMT (Spectral Metacogitive Tests) made of 20 MC (1 solution being correct) each. Instructions were : "In addition to the proposed solutions, you ust consider that the correct answer could be 6. None, 7. All of them, 8. Lack of data and 9. Absurdity in the question itself. (for Open ended questions, only the two last "general implicit solutions" were applied. These 4 general solutions (since they are relevant for all questions) have been used in an implicit way, i.e. they were anounced at the start of the test, but were not repeated into each question. The students were invited to add, to each asnwer (be it phrased or chosen) a confidence degree chosen amng 6 possibilities : 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, 100%. The students were asked to answer twice to the test, the second time with a red pencil to indicate their changes in responses as well as in confidence degrees. Just before the second time they provided answers, the students were reminded the General Implicit Solutions (GIS). A systematic debate, question by question, was organized when each teacher communicated the expected answers. Each student received a dashboard of his/her performance with metacognitive indices (spectral score, calibration, internal coherence, centration, etc.). Teachers received data related to their group of students.