名古屋高等教育研究 第 20 号 （2020）

Training Teachers in University Teaching inFrance: What Systems and What Tools?
Nathalie YOUNÈS*＜Abstract＞
In the context of the decree of 9 May 2017 which makes teacher
training compulsory for associate professors in France during theirfirst year of recruitment, by combining it with a discharge in the
education service, French universities are embarking on a new era
where the importance of learning to teach is recognised. This amajor change in an environment where career access andpromotion are primarily dependent on the research file and withoutestablished teacher training. The question arises of training
systems suited to the reality of the professional conditions of theuniversity teachers and the resources of the Higher Education
establishments. In this regard, the French Ministry of Higher
Education, Research and Innovation has piloted the design of a
training system structured around a national MOOC and local
events led by the educational support services of the universities.
This article presents the background to this initiative, theobjectives and choices of the designers and the principal results ofan evaluative survey conducted in 2018 with the MOOC users.

1．Introduction
In France, most university teachers are state-employed researchprofessors; their recruitment and career are governed by national
provisions and they are recruited by competitive examination. AssistantProfessor, Laboratoire ACTe Université Clermont-Auvergne(Visiting Associate Professor, Center for the Studies of Higher Education,
Nagoya University)

321

professors are appointed by ministerial decree and professors by the
President of the Republic and they benefit from employment throughout
their professional life 1). After recruitment, access to permanent tenure isdefined by a year’s training which, in practice, is still a formality 2).
However, the imposition of compulsory teacher training during this firstyear, changes the boundaries somewhat (Paivandi and Younes 2019).
Indeed, until now, there was no tradition of initial and continuingteacher training in universities, as was the case for teachers in primaryand secondary schools. University culture is strongly influenced by amedieval founding myth that has stood the test of time and been
reinforced by the Humboldtian model since the early 19th century.
According to this myth, being a scholar is a necessary and sufficientcondition for passing on your knowledge. This justifies the fact that the
research file is still the principal basis for recruitment and promotion atuniversities.
The relevance of teacher training for research professors has
painstakingly become a subject of debate in France through the opening
up of higher education to the masses. The end of the elitist university andthe mass arrival of “new students” has revealed the limits of educational
practices mainly focused on knowledge and the teacher. The correlation
between excellence in research and excellence in teaching is being
questioned in the university culture. During the National Union of Higher
Education Congress in 1967, delegates voted for a motion on university
teaching, reflecting that the teacher was too often thought of as a “master”
dispensing their knowledge to their disciples; tending to consider theirteaching function as secondary to their work. The motion recognised thatteaching is not a gift or a favour, but a technique that must be used forrational learning 3). Publications in French aiming to promote teaching atuniversity and in favour of a “learning profession” (for examples, Bireaud
1990, 1996, Donnay and Romainville 1996, De Ketele 1998, Rege Colet andBerthiaume 2014) have also increased since the 1980s. More than a quarterof a century after the first publications, it must be recognised that theissues raised by the authors and the actions they propose with regards
teacher training for higher education teachers are still valid. While on this322

Training Teachers in University Teaching in France

subject France holds the sad record of PhD students (51%) who consider
that their teaching skills are weak or very weak according to a European
study (European Commission (EACEA/Eurydice) 2017). The same
European Commission makes the observation of a general need to improve
the status and quality 4) of higher education making “professional teaching
ever more urgent. Teachers need to be well prepared and trained forbeing able to cater for students with diverse backgrounds, expectations
and needs” (European Commission 2016: 7).
This is the context in which the French Ministry of Higher Education,
Research and Innovation has made teacher training compulsory for all
newly recruited associate professors from the start of the 2018 academic
year and established the right to continuing training over the next five
years 5). This obligation concerns approximately 1,100 new individuals
every year, across 72 universities and 65 schools (2017 data). In the decreeof February 2018, the ministry responsible for higher education did not
specify the format nor the content of the training to be provided,
preferring to give the establishments free reign, given the large disparityof local situations. A 2015 survey of 262 establishments revealed that only
49% of respondents had a structure such as an educational support service
or educational innovation support, involved in the training of researchprofessors(Cosnefroy2015).

However,

this

value

was

probably

overestimated because it relates to just the respondent establishments,
which are by nature motivated by the teacher training of their researchprofessors.
In this context, the Directorate General for Higher Education andProfessional Insertion (DGESIP) wanted to provide a MOOC to theestablishments, but also to individuals who wished to learn independently.
Its design, managed by the Strategic Educational Advisor and MiPNES 6),
was assigned to the university teaching service and ICT in teaching units(TICE/SUPTICE) of Rennes 1 university. Launched in November 2017,
which was one year before the regulatory training obligation was
introduced, the MOOC Se former pour enseigner dans le supérieur (Trainto teach in higher education) was implemented on the national
FUN-MOOC platform 7). For its first 2017/2018 session, there were 13,724

323

subscribers. This article presents the objectives, design choices and an
initial assessment of this system based on a quantitative and qualitative
survey conducted in 2017/2018 with the MOOC’s users and should make itpossible to regulate the system.

2．The Choice of a Hybrid Teacher Training System
The challenge for the designers was to build a resource at the same time
self-sufficient and integrated with the training provided by the educational
support services where they exist.
Indeed, since the MOOC covers the basics of teaching in higher
education, there was a risk that these support services would consider it
as a parallel offer available to teachers and that it would remain
disconnected from their actions (Delalande et al. 2019). In order to ensure
consistency and acceptance, it was decided that the national MOOC would
be combined with local proposals (workshops by the establishment's
support service) in a hybrid system, coordinated nationally and designed
using a collaborative approach by a team of experts belonging to several
establishments.

3．Content of the MOOC
The MOOC’s design team initially focused on identifying themes thatare generally accepted as central to the teaching activity by education andtraining professionals. Five themes were identified: “Making students active”: active teaching, feedback techniques,project-based learning, simulations and role play, group work,
interactivity scenarios; “Motivating students”: factors and levers for motivation, classactivities likely to motivate, the neuroscience perspective on
learning and motivation;
 “Building teaching/learning activities”: constructive alignment,
learning objectives, teaching structure and syllabus, programme324

Training Teachers in University Teaching in France

and skills-based approaches; “Assessing students’ learning”: assessment strategies, feedback,self-assessment methods (multiple choice questionnaires, portfolio,
peer reviews);
 “Me and my environment”: teacher attitude, working in an
educational team, national and international context of higher
education, professional development mapping.
The linear and modular structuring of resources and activities aims to
make the learning pathway more flexible and more personal. Linearity,
useful for understanding and navigating a distance learning system, ispromoted by identical scripting for each theme of the MOOC: preamble,
logbook, training resources, testimonial resources, themed debate, test,
conclusion and a specific calendar showing the events and online tutorials.
As for modularity, this is provided by giving access to all resources when
the MOOC is opened (for “butterfly” type users or direct access to certain
resources which the participant sees as more useful for example) andthrough a range of resources and activities (self-positioning, case studies,
test, individual and collaborative productions, participation in themed
debates, etc.). Offering these different forms of learning increases thesources of reflective questioning, opportunities for sharing and interaction
between peers. As Berthiaume and Weston (2015) point out, this alsoenables each participant to enrich their knowledge base for teaching(elements, tools, techniques, beliefs... that make up all the teaching
resources used by a teacher) and question their personal epistemology(beliefs with regards the knowledge, its construction and its evaluation).
Three pathways are offered to the participants, the “Discovery”
pathway, the “Reflexive” pathway and the “Sharing and contributions”
pathway (see below). Each one can be completed remotely in total
autonomy, or be supported by meetings with educational coaches offering
advice on individual productions, supplemented by classroom-based
workshops (discussions about practices, debates, etc.) or even generate
local collaborative productions and published online on the MOOC. In
order to encourage the organisation and running of local actions, the325support services were given access to the entire MOOC a few months
before its launch. Each theme was extended to two weeks in order tomake it more flexible and facilitate the organisation of local events. There
was also an experiment with one final form of hybridisation, “Subject
books.” In order to enhance the MOOC and create a direct link between
the participants in establishments and those online, several conferenceswere broadcast live within the MOOC. Filmed and combined with chatwindows, they are a form of synchronous hybridisation entirely supportedby the establishment hosting the speaker.

4．Between xMOOC and cMOOC, the Design of the MOOC
Scientific literature generally differentiates between two categories of
MOOC, even if these are the subject of growing debate (Mangenot 2014):
transmissive xMOOCs and connectivist cMOOCs (Hollands and Tirthali2014). The choice for the MOOC Se former pour enseigner dans lesupérieur is more of a hybrid (Poellhuber, Roy, and Moukhachen 2017),
both managed and open. Indeed, for the first two pathways offered to thelearner (the “Discovery” and reflexive pathways), it initially proposes
publishing a traditional course online with predefined content andexercises, using a more instructional approach. The MOOC has 5 themed
sections, each covering several key concepts of university teaching (seeabove). For each one, the key transmissive content is provided by video
clips recorded in a format which is often similar to classroom-basedteaching (the teacher speaking and facing the camera or voice-over andbroadcasting a slide show or documents), or in the format of an interview
with an expert. Depending on the case, these are supplemented by links toonline documents (scientific articles, online resources, examples of use) andby testimonial videos about the experiences in context, illustrating theimplementation of the key concepts. On this point, the selected system
confirms an omnipresent trend in the current MOOCs, with video clips as
the dominant learning resource, repeating the old formats of educational
television as highlighted by Peraya (2017). The course completion
certificate for the MOOC is based on multiple choice type tests, which are

326

Training Teachers in University Teaching in France

used to check the proper understanding of the content presented in thisrather transmissive aspect of the system.
However, this MOOC also proposes giving the learner greater control
over their learning by encouraging discussions between peers, thecreation of links and the distribution of knowledge in a network (Gilliot,
Grolleau, Morgan, and Vaufrey 2013: 2). To do so, it relies specifically on
two teaching activities:
 a discussion forum about a deliberately divisive or provocative
question on the 5 themes of the MOOC, in order to encourage
debatebetweenparticipants,forexample,“Areteachers

responsible for students’ motivation?” or “Must there be a choice
between knowledge transmission and skills development?”; peer feedback, based on the shared analysis of a reflective activity
conducted by volunteer participants in groups of 4 (each one giving
their criterion-based opinion on the reflective activity of 3 otherparticipants), for example, “Create a reliable and valid marking
scheme” using a teaching situation recently experienced by eachparticipant.
Finally, the third pathway proposed in the MOOC, called “Sharing andcontributions”, is dedicated entirely to this connectivist aspect, with asection based on the discussion and peer review of four types ofcontributions: a documentation tracker (on useful references or resources),an account of a reflexive experience (on an experiment with a teaching
method), an analytical poster (on a current topic, “digital and learning” forexample) or a methodological data sheet (formalising a reproducible
working method). In this section, the activities are no longer regulated by
the MOOC’s teaching team, but by the participants themselves,
sometimes assisted, if they wish, by the support service of their related
establishment.
These design choices include the system selected to comply with thework on the professional development of teachers, as a complex processexperienced form the stakeholder’s perspective (Frenay, Jorro, and327

Poumay, 2011), in relation to the individualisation, reflexivity and lifelong
learning. Lameul, Peltier and Charlier define this as a “socially structured,individual process of changing practices and the gradual acquisition ofskills recognised by the person themselves and by the professional
community in which the individual plays an active part and is engaged”(Lameul, Peltier and Charlier 2014: 102). Internationally, since the 1990s,
this concept has taken shape in particular through the Scholarship ofTeaching and Learning (SoTL) which builds on the reflective analyses of
the activity. Bedard (2014) identifies four stages for research professors:
practitioner (experiential knowledge), reflective practitioner (reflecting on
their practice), researcher practitioner (using theories or models to explain
their practice) and educational researcher (produces and publishes
knowledge on the subject). This MOOC falls within the first two byoffering several case studies (video testimonials by peers about theirpractices,

examplesofapplication

through

onlineresourcesanddocuments) and reflective activities in particular. A specific pathway(called “reflective”) is dedicated to them, which complements thetransmissive approach described above through reflective activities
conducted from a teaching or training situation, on which the participant
wishes to work throughout the MOOC. As their pathway progresses, eachparticipant can therefore complete an activity related to the fivestructuring themes (for example write the syllabus for their teaching), by
answering targeted questions encouraging a critical and analytical stepback and by gradually completing a personal logbook (in the form of open
and closed questions). The objective is to make each participant document
their practice and experience from analysis grids and document templates
centred on the content set out in the MOOC and thus to explain, but also
develop, their personal epistemology. Indeed, Poteaux (2017: 26) explainsthat “the different trends developed in the context of personal
epistemology generally consider that belief systems are constituted intheories to guide the action of teachers.” In particular, she cites Abric(2003), who considers that these beliefs fulfil several functions: epistemic(givingmeaningtotheexperiences),

identity(locatedinasocio-professional field), prescriptive (guiding behaviours, actions and328

Training Teachers in University Teaching in France

practices) and providing justification or self-defence (particularly for youngteachers entering the role, faced with the difference between the imagined
job and the actual job).
The feedback analysis on the 2017/2018 session of the MOOC, developedin the second part of this article, is used to compare these design choiceswith the reality of hybrid training practices, in both their collective andindividual dimension.

5．The MOOC in the Real World: User Survey
In a context of comprehensive and prospective evaluation-regulation, asurvey of the MOOC’s users was commissioned by the MiPNES with thelaboratoire ACTé (Younès et al, 2018). This was intended give thedesigners clarity on achieving the MOOC’s objectives and provide themwith useful elements for its development. It involved determining the
profiles of the users, their motivations, what they learned through the
MOOC, the uses and the conditions for understanding the favourable andunfavourable configurations for training development with such a hybrid
system. The survey was completed using a mixed methodological design(Creswell and Plano-Clark 2007) combining qualitative and quantitative
analysis. The collection of data from the MOOC’s users was based on theconstruction and execution of seven questionnaires at different times
during the training course, tracking activity on the platform andconducting interviews two to three months after the course. The analysis
in this article is based primarily on the data from the seven questionnaires
incorporated into the MOOC and clarified by the other analyses (tracking
and interviews):
 the first “Profiles” questionnaire aims to identify users’ sociologicalcharacteristics, their professional situation (professional category,level of education, experience in teaching), their experience with
MOOCs and in education, their level of planned involvement andtheir motivations;
 the five end-of-topic questionnaires (five themes in total) and the329

final questionnaire were designed to gather information on the useof the MOOC (selected pathway, time spent, proportion of course
followed, content used), user satisfaction, what was learned and thecontributions to their teaching practice.
The answers to these questionnaires were subject to a descriptive
analysis (breakdown of responses by percentage) and the variables
characterising the respondents were cross-referenced (sex, age, status,etc.). The chi-squared test was used to test the significance, or lackthereof, of the link between these variables: a 5% significance threshold
was selected. A multiple component analysis was also conducted to
study

the

links

betweenplanneduse,

motivations

andusers’

characteristics.

6．A Diversified Audience Somewhat Familiar with MOOCs
Of the population of the MOOC, 1,931 individuals answered theProfiles” questionnaire, which is 14% of the 13,724 subscribers. The
response rate progressively decreases which corresponds to the usual
dropout rate of the MOOCs (Jordan 2015).
It was characterised by a great diversity between profiles, in terms ofages, disciplines, teaching and experience and teacher training as well as
professional and geographical situations. The different audiences targetedby the designers were reached: research professors, teachers in higher
education, PhD students and educational advisors/engineers in higher
education represented 61% of the questionnaire’s respondents which is
1,177 of the population studied 8) (see figure 1). In 2018, according to thedata from the Evaluation, Forecasting and Performance Department(DEPP), in the overall population of higher education teachers, most wereresearch professors (61% of the workforce). However, they only accountfor 25% of the survey sample.

330

Training Teachers in University Teaching in France

Professors and Ass. ProfPhD Students
Other higher education teachers
pedagogical advisers/ingeniors
Other

20%

30%

40%

Age

60%

70%

25%
14%
8%
39%
39%
61%
21%
31%
29%
20%

1 year
2-4 years
5 years or more
Arts, literature and languages
Law, economy and management
Science and technology
Social and human sciences
Health and sports
Other
Non concerné

50%

14%

Aged under 30
Aged 30-39
Aged 40-49 ans
Aged 50 and overteaching
Discipline taught

years in

Number of

10%

Men
Women

GenderStatus

0%

14%
25%
61%
12%
11%
31%
12%
11%
8%
15%

Source: Author

Figure 1

Main Characteristics of the Respondents

In addition to the data on users’ status and the observation of theunder-representation of research professors, the analysis of the age,gender and disciplinary attachment shows that the MOOC reaches all age
ranges, all disciplines and that women are the main users of this resource.
All ages are represented: 21% are aged under 30, and are mostly PhD
students. 20% of those surveyed are aged over 50 (especially otheruniversity teachers). Those aged 30/39 and 40/49 are most represented
with 31% and 29% of participants in each category. The average age is 39.6
years. Educational engineers and advisors are most often aged between 30
and 39. 72% of research professors are aged between 30 and 49 (theaverage age is 43). The breakdown by gender demonstrates the large
proportion of women, all status categories included: 61% of respondents
were women, although far fewer women then men pursue postgraduate
studies (Boutillier and Laperche 2007) and have an academic career (60% of
men and 40% of women amongst higher education teachers according to
the ministry’s #dataESR site 9). Use of the MOOC is therefore muchgreater among female research professors and PhD students: 55%331

compared with 45% of their male colleagues. The retrospective analysis of
the non-responses could however reveal that fewer men than womenanswer questions about using the MOOC.
All discipline categories are represented, but in varying proportions.
Science and technology teachers are the largest group (30% of theworkforce). It is also observed that teachers in health and sport are
relatively well represented, with 10% of the workforce 10). They are also
the youngest, compared with users from the artistic, legal and economic
disciplines. Most state that they have already had teacher training: 43%
through one or more training course(s), 15% self-taught, 17% reportexperiential learning and 22% are beginners. Participation in seminars isvery low (only 3% of respondents). The oldest have had the most training.
Research professors are trained more on the job than other categories.
Other teachers report that they have taken part in initial and continuing
training. For educational engineers and advisors, training methods
through seminars and continuing training are more important. 37% of PhD
students say that they have had no training (compared with 22% for thewhole population).

faculty (resercher)
PhDother higher education faculty
educational advisor
others
total
0%

10%

20%

30%

no training
self-development
participation in conderence

40%

50%

60%

332

80%

one time training
continuing education
OJT

Source: Author

Figure 2

70%

Training According to Status

90%

100%

Training Teachers in University Teaching in France

If we take into account just the three categories that are involved inteaching students in higher education (research professors, PhD students,
other teachers), the figures are basically the same: 22% have no training,
23% say they have undertaken continuing training and 19% have learnedon the job. While there is still some ambiguity in respondents’ answers
between self-taught, on-the-job training and no training, the qualitative
analyses do give some insight. It is the reflective and formative
relationship to the respondents’ education which is in question.
Self-teaching refers to a proactive approach of self-information throughreading, discussions with colleagues etc. and a clearer awareness ofeducational development. On-the-job focuses instead on learning developed
through experience although some stress the lack of teacher training, therelative isolation and routines that are subject to less examination.
Generally, the results reveal a fact already known in higher education
regarding the weakness of initial and continuing teacher training and theuse of information and communication technologies by higher educationteachers in France (Ben Youssef and Hadhri 2009). Indeed, three quartersof respondents state that they have followed MOOCs previously, but 40%of them report that they have not followed them in their entirety. For aquarter of respondents, this was the first MOOC they had followed, whichshows that the audience reached includes not only the population of
normal users, but also an audience of novices in this training method. This
reality is particularly true for research professors (41% starting their firstMOOC) and even PhD students (33%). Novice teachers are not the largest
group to follow the MOOC (on average 14%), even though moreeducational advisors/engineers declare using them for training or for
information.

7． A Wide Range of Motivations
1,211 people responded to one and/or other of the two open questions
regarding motivations. Table 1 presents the percentage of responses ineach of the 15 categories.

333

Table 1

Themes Identified Regarding Motivations (Open Questions)
Themes identified regarding motivations%

Improving and developing practices (updating skills)

50%

Acquisition of knowledges and skills

37%

Understanding the student audience for greater student
commitment (capture attention, student psychology, etc.)
Specific need (digital tools, participation, innovation: flippedclass, active teaching, cultural adaptation, specific project...)Preparing to teach at university (documentation preparation,
students)
Self

assessment:

reflecting

on/analysing

theirpractice,

responsiveness

22%

19%

12%

11%

Curiosity, intrinsic motivation (interesting topic, interest in thesubject, desire to know more about the subject, it excites me,

11%

responds to my requirements, etc.)
Professional development towards higher education or other(career change)
Discussion (sharing, benefiting from others’ experience, etc.)
A better teaching experience (trust, pleasure, pathway process
to be chosen, practice, curiosity)
Discover a MOOC, a training via this MOOC format

8%
5%
4%
4%

Enhancing the CV, extrinsic motivation: obtaining certificates,
encouragement

from

the

hierarchy/university,

validating

4%

training hours
Training of new research professors

3%

Training/advising students

3%

Leading an educational team (support)

2%

Source: Author

The sociological diversity of the MOOC audience is linked to therichness of the motivations expressed and their variety. Seniority has an
impact; helping to develop professional practices is generally the most334

Training Teachers in University Teaching in France

common motivation among teachers, and is mostly expressed by theexperienced research professors. However, the expectation of knowledge
and help in everyday life is most chosen by the novices. Thus, themotivations expressed in the open questions vary considerably dependingon the respondents’ status:

research professors mostly expressed the following motivations:improvinganddeveloping

practices,training

newresearch

professors; a better teaching experience (confidence, pleasure, etc.);
discussion (sharing, benefiting from others’ experience); MOOC typetraining methods (format, pathway process, etc.);

PhD students more often cited the fact of preparing for university
and extrinsic motivations such as enhancing their CV, obtaining
certification, etc. or goals pursued by the student and reflecting theirabilityforself-guidance(Pintrich2003),

their

feelingofself-effectiveness (Bandura 2003) and their reference practices(Charlier, Nizet, and Van Dam 2006), i.e. the practices experienced orplanned by the student for their future, and giving meaning to thetraining system (Charlier, Deschryver, and Peraya 2006);
other higher education teachers are motivated by: self-assessment(reflecting on/analysing their practice); improving and developing
practices; better understanding the student audience (capturing theirattention, engaging them); a better teaching experience (confidence,
pleasure,etc.);

discussion(sharing,

benefitingfromothers’experience);

educational engineers/advisor are more interested in: knowledge
acquisition (tools, resources, etc.); specific needs (digital, participation,
innovation: flipped classroom, active teaching, etc.); leading an
educational team; training and advising teachers;

as for the other participants, they more often cited professional
development towards higher education and curiosity, interest.

335

8．Following the MOOC in Their Spare TimeThe large majority of respondents (79%) say that they intend to follow
the MOOC in their spare time. Only 21% say that they want to do it during
their working time. These results show fairly tight time management,
forcing most people to follow it outside their working hours, regardless of
the respondents’ gender or seniority. The discipline and personal
situation are differentiating variables. Indeed, a third of science teachers
and a quarter of those in health and sport consider following the MOOC
in their working hours, compared with 15% of teachers in otherdisciplines. Only one in three research professors manages to find time
during their working day to follow the MOOC. The situation is evenmore difficult for PhD students (24%) and for other higher educationteachers (13%). Educational advisors and engineers are those who
manage to follow the MOOC best during their working hours (42%), butalso those who think they dedicate less time to it. These results reveal
the real difficulty for teachers in integrating teacher training into theirworking hours.
The most immediate expression of this difficulty refers to two mainelements: the varying availability (or lack thereof) of the users and theactual training time, more substantial than the time indicated by the
MOOC’s team (and this, for the different themes proposed). Several
requests ask for more time to be allowed for each theme. However, theanalysis also reveals a long list of deadlines to be managed for users (startand end of themes, peer review, certifications, etc.). In this list, users in adifferent time zone to the MOOC team, have to manage their timedifference by recalculating the entire timetable for the selected pathway.
Although it seems important to re-calibrate the time organisation of the
MOOC, by giving greater legibility and latitude to the different deadlines,
each week and week on week, this analysis also shows the still unresolved
difficulty of reconciling the timing for a training course open to all(regardless of availability, location, learning pace, training intention,
collaboration between peers, etc.) and the personal timing of theindividual learning of each user. In order to support personalised

336

Training Teachers in University Teaching in France

learning in MOOCs, a freedom to adapt certain deadlines is one of theareas suggested by scientific literature (Bejaoui, Paquette, Basque, andHenri 2016).
In terms of the choice of pathway, the proportion of participants whowish to follow the most comprehensive pathway (reflective pathway)remains steady, regardless of status. However, there is great interest in
the “Discovery” pathway with 68% of respondents planning to follow it.
More women than men plan to follow this pathway (71% compared to 64%
for men). The initial proportion choosing this pathway increases over time:
79% after theme 1 and 90% after theme 5 (see figure 3). 28% of all
respondents opt for the reflective pathway. More men than women
gravitate towards this (31 % vs. 26 %) and it is chosen by more researchprofessors and others involved in higher education (approximately a third).
Unlike the “Discovery” pathway, the initial proportion in favour of thispathway decreases over time. It represents just 9% of respondents after
the final theme (see figure 3). Finally, “Sharing and contributions” is in lastplace: 4% (n=75). More men opt for this pathway (6% compared to 3% forwomen).

Source: Author

Figure 3

Pathways chosen and completed

The analysis also shows great disparities between the resources
consulted and, to a lesser extent, between the themes consulted (seefigure 4).

337

Shared resources in the "Sharing" pathway

Forum

Reflexives activities

Methodological tools and their analysis

Texts

Videos0%

Theme 1: Making students active
Theme 3: Building teaching
Theme 5: Me and my environment

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Theme 2: Motivating students
Theme 4: Assessing students

90% 100%

learning

Source: Author

Figure 4

Resources Consulted According to the 5 Themes of the MOOC

Videos are reported as the most used resources, regardless of the theme.
The percentage of respondents that say they have consulted them (94%)
remains steady across the MOOC’s five themes. However, this does notmean that all the videos were consulted, an observation that will also bevalid for other resources, let alone that they had given rise to detailed
work, nor were they consulted in their entirety. The usage monitoring
supplied by the FUN-MOOC platform not allowing to know it. The texts
are consulted almost as much; by 85% to 92% of respondents. However, themethodological tools for teaching and their analysis, generally usedsignificantly less than the videos and texts, are used more or lessdepending on the themes. The reflective activities are not widely used,which corresponds with the choice of most people to follow the “Discovery”
pathway, from which such activities are excluded. However, we see thatthey are consulted by more users (between 17% and 30%) than those whostated that they had followed the reflective pathway at the end of the338

Training Teachers in University Teaching in France

MOOC (9%) and that this varies depending on the themes. Even without
contributing to it, some of the respondents consult the forums and liked
that social interactions were available to watch in the videos. However,consultation of the forums gradually decreases over time, from 29% to 16%.
These results match the observations of Rossi and Gnawali (2014), cited by
Quentin and Condé (2016), who comment that forum posts, which aremainly the work of a few contributors, generally decrease after the firsthalf of a course, regardless of the theme of the MOOC, its language andeven its duration.

Me and my environment
Assessing students

27%

learning

64%

36%

58%

Building teaching

43%

53%

Motivating students

44%

53%

Making students active

43%

55%

0%

10%

20%

Very satisfied

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

Satisfied

Source: Author

Figure 5

User Satisfaction According to Themes

While no causal link can be established between these variables, theconditions under which participants carry out the MOOC appear to havean impact on the type of training pathway chosen and undertaken, as wellas the resources used, and hence the quality of learning achieved.
Inclusion of the MOOC as a possible resource in the compulsory training of
new lecturers, accounted for in the time budget opens up an avenue of
research to be explored.

339

9．A Complex Connection between Collective Educational andLearning Dynamics
It is clear that there is a difference between the designers’ intentions
and how the MOOC is used. The connectivist ambition is generally notachieved in the context of an isolated use of the MOOC. However, whenused as part of a local collective educational and/or support dynamic,
there is greater support which raises the question of the importance andnature of the hybridisation required by the MOOC’s designers(distance/presence, individual/collective). This once again highlights the
weakness and importance of the collective educational dynamics related to
the MOOC, and more broadly in the working contexts. Indeed, although
the benefit of the interactions and the collaborative dimension generated
by the MOOC through exchanges between participants, collective
reflection and peer reviews are not disputed, the survey reveals that theactivities with a reflective and collaborative aim are the least practised
and that the shared resources are favoured very little by respondents. The
peer review is almost non-existent. Associated with the reflective pathway,
it concerns 30% of respondents in theme 1 (which is consistent with the
choice of the reflective pathway), then it decreases (11% in the final theme).
Obtaining feedback about the peer review is nearly impossible, due to thelack of the long-term involvement of participants. The collective work isdifficult and the exchange of files between participants is prevented by theergonomic limits of the platform. The data seems to indicate that, mostparticipants are not looking for the collective dimension of the MOOC,
although this often seems to be crucial for perseverance and learning. One
research professor who was interviewed said that he preferred “to discuss
it with colleagues from [his] university, than discuss it in writing in an
online forum with people who [he] doesn’t know”. The surveys that arepart of this system seem to favour a transmissive (especially among PhD
students) and individualistic approach (Charlier, Bonamy, and Saunders
2003). Those who undertake the MOOC in a collective professionalframework seem to persevere more and go further in their learning.
Through the different themes, five types of learning are frequently340

Training Teachers in University Teaching in France

highlighted: conceptualising the practice (objectify, explain, model),broadening the field of possibles, questioning and evaluating their practice,conceptualisingtheintervention

areas,

understandingtheteaching-learning processes. In addition, three principal resources appear
to be the most interesting elements in enhancing the practice, questioning
it and conceptualising it. The first refers to testimonials from colleagues.
These are understood as learning resources for the practice, particularly
when they are supported by practical examples. A vicarious learningsource, access to peer experience can be considered “exciting”. Some
comments also mention the benefit of testimonials from students andexperts in the MOOC. The second is the search for usable tools forpractical instruction. Some themes, perceived as less practical than others
are also criticised. Finally, the third focuses on theoretical concepts andscientificcontributions.

Consideredasusefulforconceptualising,questioning and developing their own teaching practice, these resources
are also considered as ways of understanding learning in students and theteaching-learning processes. The question of the link between the theory
and practice of teaching was mentioned by participants as an important
aspect of the training. However, their testimonials show that, too often,these theoretical concepts are insufficiently illustrated with practicalexamples of teaching practice, which, according to them, would help togive a better understanding of the theoretical concepts and improve theiroperational use in the field. The interviews and observations provide
complementary elements. The scientific literature associated with the
MOOC is infrequently or not used, either in individual self-study within the
MOOC or in the related workshops. Making the structuring theoreticaland scientific concepts more visible and showing how they can operate in
the practice of teaching using practical examples or illustrations is anavenue to be explored.
Finally, participants assess the content differently depending on theirprofile (expert, beginner), professional situation, discipline or audience. So,
can the MOOC be considered more or less suited to certain categories?
Opinions differ on this subject; educational experts judge it more suited to
beginners, beginners consider it targeted more towards experienced341

teachers and some teachers or educational engineers deem it more suited
to educational advisors than teachers. While some are impressed by its
contributions, others can criticise its summary, even simplistic, nature.
The demand for greater detail, or even more complexity, is a minority
trend, but is nonetheless present in the comments. Depending on theirdiscipline and professional situation, some teachers do not recognise
themselves in the resources presented.

10．Conclusion
The survey can be used to establish a nuanced picture useful for thedesign and evaluation of the MOOC Se former pour enseigner dans lesupérieur, but more generally for MOOCs related to the national FUN
platform on which it is hosted. Incorporating the evaluation into the designmeans taking into account the limitations of the opportunities to analyse
the platform’s activity and devising systems that allow the collection ofquantitative and qualitative data on the profiles and training pathways.
Furthermore, data collection using questionnaires integrated into the
MOOC can only be used to reach some of the relevant population; those
subscribers who persevere with the training and respond to thequestionnaires 11).

For this population, it clearly seems that the MOOC

satisfies one or more needs and provides valued resources that areconsidered useful (fig. 5). On the other hand, the survey shows a certain
number of difficulties, dissatisfactions and limits, which lead to a specificfocus on certain watch points that include time management for individual
training within a mass training system, the choice of resources and thecontent according to the specific features of the targeted audience.
Distinctive features, in terms of the profiles highlighted in this survey,
raise questions, particularly about the paradoxes generated by this hybrid
system targeting several audiences simultaneously (research professors,
higher education teachers, PhD students, etc.) and about the limits andrules set out by the diversity of the learners’ individual pathways(professional experiences, seniority), their familiarity with the MOOC
system, their availability, expectations and motivations. As we have seen,342

Training Teachers in University Teaching in France

these features sometimes stumble over certain initial design choices,focused on a professional development perspective for higher educationteachers and based on several reflective and collaborative activities, even
if the different procedures offered by a hybrid and open system makepotential adjustments possible during the training.
In any case, they open up the opportunities to develop this MOOC to bebetter adapted to the level of educational expertise and the disciplines
taught. This then provides a better response to the specific professionalsituations of the audiences actually affected, but also makes the collective
aspect of the training in this MOOC a real asset. With the development ofassociated communities of practice and the now institutionalised validationof teacher training for research professors in France, 29 French higher
education institutions have included this MOOC as a training resource forthe 2018/2019 session (which began in November 2018), asking for thecreation of groups specific to their teachers, so that they can monitor theirlearning pathways. Future research will have to study the training
dynamics generated by these hybridisations.

Notes
1）According to sources from the French Ministry of National Education(Repères et références statistiques, 2015), 91,700 individuals taught in higher
education in 2014-2015. Most were statutory research professors. University
professors and lecturers made up 65% of the workforce, with 23% and 42%
respectively. Secondary school teachers seconded to higher education andreaders and foreign language teachers accounted for 15.3% of the workforce
and temporary teaching and research assistants (ATER) and contractual
PhD students 14.6%. From 1992 to 2015, the entire teaching personnel inhigher education rose by nearly 70%. During this period, the number ofprofessors increased by 39%, that of associate professors by 75% and thenumber of secondary school teachers grew by 56%. The number of ATER,
instructors and contractual PhD students more than doubled. Thisobservation is not specific to France. Internationally, part-time teaching jobs
are being developed in increasingly private universities and the conditions343

for an academic career are deteriorating (Altbach and Knight 2007).
2) While in other countries, “tenure” is reached after a probationary period ofseveral years (“tenure track”) during which effectiveness in research andteaching as assistant professors must be demonstrated (Collet-Sassere,
Bigaut, Paquis, and Verhaeghe 2015: 5-6).
3) Le Monde, 3 May 1967, p. 9, quoted by Ardoino (1971, p.314).
4) See the press release from the Yerevan Ministerial Conference.
(https://www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/2015̲Yerevan/70/7/YerevanCommuniqueFinal̲613707.pdf, 2019.7.18).
5) Decree 2017-854 of 9 May 2017 amending modified decree no. 84-431 of 6
June 1984 establishing the common statutory provisions applicable toresearch professors and covering the special status of university teaching
and lecturing staff. Decree of 8 February 2018 establishing the nationalframework for training designed to enhance the teaching skills of trainee
lecturers.
6) Teaching and digital mission for higher education, Training strategy andstudent life service within DGESIP.
7) “France université numérique” (FUN) is the French national platform topromote the use of massive open online courses (MOOCs). FUN is on line
since 2013.
8) Remember, according to the #dataESR site of open data from the ministry,
the total population of higher education teachers (both tenured andnon-tenured: university professors, lecturers, secondary school teachers
assigned to higher education, PhD students with teaching responsibilities,
temporary teaching and research assistants) is 90,000 individuals in France(available
at:(https://data.esr.gouv.fr/FR/T895/P567/tableau̲des̲enseignants̲de̲l̲ens
eignement̲superieur̲public̲niveau̲national̲-̲ressources̲humaines,
2019.7.18).
9) (https://data.esr.gouv.fr/FR/T895/P567/tableau̲des̲enseignants̲de̲l̲enseignement̲superieur̲public̲niveau̲national̲-̲ressources̲humaines,
2019.7.18)).
10) NB: this proportion complies with their positioning in French higher
education compared with the other disciplines taught (see link above to the#dataESR site).
11) On this point, this MOOC is no exception to the uses currently seen byother surveys of the same type.

344

Training Teachers in University Teaching in France

References
Abric,

J.

C.,

2003,

Méthodesd’étudesdesreprésentationssociales,Ramonville-Saint-Agne, Eres.
Altbach, P. G. and Knight, J., 2007, “The Internationalization of Higher
Education: Motivations and Realities”, Journal of Studies in International

Education, 11(3-4): 290-305. [DOI: 10.1177/1028315307303542]
Ardoino, J., 1971, Propos actuels sur l’éducation, Paris : Gauthier-Villars.
Bandura, A., 2003, Auto-efficacité: Le sentiment d’efficacité personnelle,
Bruxelles: De Boeck.
Bédard, D., 2014, “Être enseignant ou devenir enseignant dans le supérieur:
telle est la question… de posture !”, G. Lameul and C. Loisy C., La pédagogie

universitaire à l’heure du numérique, Bruxelles: De Boeck, 97-110.
Bejaoui, R., Paquette, G., Basque, J., and Henri, F., 2016, “Assistance à laconception de cours en ligne ouverts et massifs soutenant un apprentissage
personnalisé ”, Communication présentée au troisième colloque internationalen éducation du CRIFPE, Montréal.
Ben Youssef, A. and Hadhri, W., 2009, “Les dynamiques d’usage destechnologies de l’information et de la communication par les enseignants
universitaires: Le cas de la France”, Réseaux, 155(3): 23-54.
Berthiaume, D. and Weston, C., 2015, “Développer son savoir pédagogiquedisciplinaire”, N. Rege-Colet and D. Berthiaume, eds., La pédagogie del’enseignement supérieur: repères théoriques et applications pratiques: Se
développer au titre d’enseignant, vol. 2, Bern, Peter Lang.
Biggs, J. B., 1999, Teaching for quality learning at university, Open University
Press.
Bireaud, A., 1996,

En France, une politique de formation pédagogique pour lesenseignants du supérieur timide, hésitante et controversée”, J. Donnay and
M. Romainville, Enseigner à l’Université : Un métier qui s’apprend ?,Bruxelles: De Boeck.
Bireaud, A., 1990, “Pédagogie et méthodes pédagogiques dans l’enseignement
supérieur”, Revue française de pédagogie, 91: 13-23.
Boutillier, S. and Laperche, B., 2007, “La place des femmes dans la recherche:
apprentissage, production et valorisation des connaissances”, Marché etorganisations, 5(3): 61-77.
Charlier, B., Bonamy, J., and Saunders, M., 2003, “Apprivoiser l’innovation”, B.,
Charlier and D., Peraya, Technologies et innovation en pédagogie: Dispositifs
innovants pour l’enseignement supérieur, Bruxelles: De Boeck, 43-68.

345

Charlier, B., Deschryver, N., and Peraya, D., 2006, “Apprendre en présence et à
distance: une définition des dispositifs hybrides”, Distances et savoirs, 4(4) :469-96.
Charlier, B., Nizet, J., and Van Dam, D., 2006, Voyage au pays de la formation
des adultes: dynamiques identitaires et trajectoires sociales, Paris:
L’Harmattan.
Collet-Sassere, J., Bigaut, C., Paquis, F., and Verhaeghe, D., 2015, “Lerecrutement, le déroulement de carrière et la formation desenseignants-chercheurs. Rapport”, Les rapports de l’I.G.A.E.N.R.
(https://cache.media.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/file/2015/16/4/20
15-073̲Enseignants-chercheurs̲554164.pdf, 2019.7.18)
Commission Européenne, 2016, Améliorer et moderniser l’enseignement,
Communication de la Commission au Parlement européen, au Conseil, au
Comité économique et social européen et au Comité des régions, Repéré
sur le site du droit de l’Union européenne.
(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52016D
C0941, 2019.7.18)
Cosnefroy, L., 2015, Etat des lieux de la formation et de l’accompagnement desenseignants du supérieur, Institut français de l’éducation.
(http://ife.ens-lyon.fr/ife/recherche/enseignement-superieur/enseigner-et-a
pprendre-dans-l2019enseignement-superieur/rapports-et-etudes/etat-des-lie
ux-de-la-formation-et-de-l2019accompagnement-des-enseignants-du-supe301r
ieur, 2019.7.18)
Creswell, J., and Plano Clark, V., 2007, Designing and Conducting Mixed

Methods Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
De Ketele, J. M., 1998, La pédagogie universitaire, Louvain-la-Neuve:
Academia-Erasme.
Delalande, P., Lalle, P., Massou, L., Nocera-Picand, C., and Younes, N., 2019,“Quels usages d’un dispositif de formation continue en ligne à la pédagogie
universitaire?: Le cas du MOOC “Se former pour enseigner dans lesupérieur”, Distance et Médiation des Savoirs, 26.
(https://journals.openedition.org/dms/3532, 2019.7.18)
Deschryver, N. and Charlier, B., 2012, Dispositifs hybrides: Nouvelles

perspectives pour une pédagogie renouvelée de l’enseignement supérieur,
Rapport final.
(http://spiralconnect.univ-lyon1.fr/spiral-files/download?mode=inline&data=1757974, 2019.7.18)
Frenay, M., Jorro, A., and Poumay, M., 2011, “Développement pédagogique,346

Training Teachers in University Teaching in France
développement professionnel et accompagnement”, Recherche & formation,
67(2): 105-16.
Garland, M., 1992, Variables affecting persistence in distance education in thenatural resource sciences, Thèse de doctorat en philosophie, University of
British Columbia, Canada.
(https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/831/items/1.0086
563, 2019.7.18)
Gilliot, J. M., Grolleau A. C., Morgan, M., and Vaufrey C., 2013, “ITyPA, unpremier MOOC francophone et connectiviste”, Questions de pédagogie dansl’enseignement supérieur, colloque QPES, juin, Sherbrooke, Canada.
(https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00942447, 2019.7.18)
Hew, K. F., Qiao, C., and Tang, Y., 2018, “Understanding Student Engagementin Large-Scale Open Online Courses: A Machine Learning FacilitatedAnalysis of Student’s Reflections in 18 Highly Rated MOOCs”, International

Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(3): 69-96.
Hollands F. M. and Tirthali, D., 2014, MOOCs: Expectations and Reality, Full
Report.
(http://cbcse.org/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2014/05/MOOCs̲Expect
ations̲and̲Reality.pdf, 2019.7.18)
Jordan, K., 2015, Massive open online course completion rates revisited:
Assessment, length and attrition, The International Review of Research inOpen and Distributed Learning, 16(3): 341-58.
Jorro, A., 2002, Professionnaliser le métier d’enseignant, Paris: ESF.
Lameul, G, Peltier, C., and Charlier, B., 2014, Dispositifs hybrides de formationet développement professionnel, Effets perçus par des enseignants dusupérieur, Éducation & Formation, e-301.
(http://revueeducationformation.be/include/download.php?idRevue=19&id
Res=187, 2019.7.18)
Mangenot, F., 2014, “MOOC: hypothèses sur l’engouement pour un objet mal
identifié”, Distances et médiations des savoirs 7.
(http://journals.openedition.org/dms/844, 2019.7.18)
Paivandi, S. and Younès, N., 2019, A l’épreuve d’enseigner à l’université.

Enquête en France, Bern: Peter Lang.
Peraya, P., 2017, “Au centre des MOOC, les capsules vidéo: un renouveau de latélévision éducative ?”, Distances et médiations des savoirs 17.
(http://journals.openedition.org/dms/1738, 2019.7.18)
Pintrich, P. R., 2003,
A Motivational Science Perspective on the Role ofStudent Motivation in Learning and Teaching Contexts”, Journal of347

Educational Psychology, 95: 667-86. [DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667]
Poellhuber, B., Roy, N., and Moukhachen, M., 2017, “Les stratégies
d’apprentissage et de collaboration déployées par des utilisateurs-clés dansle MOOC: Innovations technopédagogiques en enseignement supérieur(ITES)”, Raisons éducatives, 1(21): 209-28.
Poteaux, N., 2017, “Usages des outils numériques: croyances et connaissances
des enseignants”, Massou L. and Lavielle-Gutnik N., Enseigner à l’université
avec le numérique : Savoirs, ressources, médiations. Bruxelles, De Boeck
Supérieur, 23-41.
Quentin, I. and Condé, J., 2016, “Les rôles endossés par les apprenants les plus
actifs dans un forum de MOOC: le cas d’ItyPA 2”, Distances et médiations

des savoirs 15.
(http://journals.openedition.org/dms/1567, 2019.7.18)
Rege, Colet N. and Berthiaume, D., 2014, La pédagogie de l’enseignement

supérieur: repères théoriques et applications pratiques, vol. 2, Berne: Peter
Lang.
Rossi, L. and Gnawali, O., 2014, “Language Independent Analysis andClassification of Discussion Threads in Coursera MOOC Forums”, 15th IEEE

International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration (IRI 2014),
654-61.
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263929437̲Language̲Independ
ent̲Analysis̲and̲Classification̲of̲Discussion̲Threads̲in̲Coursera̲MOO
C̲Forums, 2019.7.18)
Younès, N., Drot-Delange, B., Gal-Petifaux, N., Masseux, N., Moussay, S.,
Paivandi, S., Pironom, J., Simar, C., and Terfous, F., 2018, Impacts etperspectives du MOOC Se former pour enseigner dans le supérieur, Rapport
final, remis à la Mission de la pédagogie et du numérique pourl’enseignement supérieur, Ministère de l’enseignement supérieur, de larecherche et de l’innovation.

348

フランスにおける教授能力の形成−その制度と方法−
ナタリー・ユネス*＜要旨＞

本論文では、フランスの大学教員に対する教授能力形成のための研修の導入の背景や実施状況を明らかにする。
2017 年 5 月 9 日付け政令により、フランスでは採用後 1 年以内の准教授に対して、教授能力形成のための研修を受講することが義務化された。受講に際しては、担当の授業時間を若干軽減する措置がとられている。
フランスの大学では、教員の採用・昇格等にあたって伝統的に研究能力が重視されてきた。近年学生数が増加し多様な学生が入学する状況の中で、教育の重要性も次第に認識されるようになっている。いわば新たな時代を迎えようとしている。
研修の実施にあたっては、大学教員の労働環境や大学のリソースを考慮しそれに適合させることが求められる。それをいかに実現するかが課題である。高等教育・研究省は、この課題にこたえるべく、全国レベルでは MOOC による研修プログラムの開発、各大学レベルでは各種研修の実施を提唱している。
本稿では、このような研修の義務化の背景や研修プログラムの目的や内容、さらには MOOC 利用者を対象に 2018 年に実施した調査の主な結果を報告する。

フランス クレルモン・オーベルニュ大学教育高等学院・准教授
名古屋大学高等教育研究センター・客員准教授

349