名古屋高等教育研究

第 10 号（2010）

Becoming a Teacher in University: The First
Experiences of Faculty Development in France
Saeed PAIVANDI＜Abstract＞
This paper presents the main results of a survey on the experiences of apprentice teachers in French universities. Apprenticeteachers are selected from among the best students enrolled in athesis by the Centers for Initiation to Higher Education (CIES) for
teaching after pedagogical university training. The CIES plan has
been the first effort to introduce, at the national level, faculty development in French higher education in 20 years. A nationwide
survey was conducted on 3327 apprentice teachers engaged in 84
universities in 2001.

This paper analyzes the experiences of ap-

prentice teachers and their contact with academic life as newteachers.
The survey results showed that the apprentice teachers’ experiences were often shaped by four major challenges: the balance andtension between research and teaching, teaching practices andtraining experience, individual ties with lecturers and the collective
life of their department, and relationships and social interactions withstudents. These challenges often caused tense situations but also
helped the apprentice teachers to become familiar with the innerworkings of the academic profession, and to be involved in the construction of a professional identity.

Associate Professor, Center for Research in Higher Education, Universityof Paris 8, France
Visiting Professor, Center for the Studies of Higher Education, Nagoya
University

199

1．Introduction
The creation of the Centers for Initiation to Higher Education (CIES) in
1989 introduced a meaningful reform in French higher education.

Thisplan represented the first initiative and effort by the ministry of education
to renew the faculty and to offer a pedagogical training for future academics.

There were 14 CIES for 84 universities in which their mainfunction was to recruit and to train future teachers (monitors) in higher
education1).
The monitors selected group of the best PhD students with scholarship
who are less than 25 years-old (about 1700 each year).

Alongside theirresearch, the monitors have to teach undergraduate students (first andsecond year) for sixty four hours per year under the supervision of anexperienced professor.

They also have to follow ten days of pedagogicaltraining during the three years of their activities.

The monitors receive

an additional allowance (+35%) in return.
The organization of training varied according to the CIES: seminars,
conferences, workshops, course of one to three days.

Also, the CIES

propose several topics of training: higher education system, the organization of research in France, teaching methods, sociology of students,
student learning, assessment, educative technology.

There is not any

national teaching program, so each CIES provide a local program.
Being a monitor does not mean a pre-recruitment.

Some monitors

chose to work in public or private research organizations.

But this ex-perience increases their chance to become a lecturer.
This text attempts to present the results of a survey on 3327 monitors.
The text focuses mainly on the qualitative data from this survey and tries
to analyze the experience of monitors and their first contact with anacademic life as a new teacher.

I attempt to provide answers to somequestions about the new academic generation: Who were they?
where did they come?
tor?

200

From

How did they achieve their experience as moni-

What sorts of careers did they plan for themselves?

How did they

Becoming a Teacher in University
balance their teaching and research ?

2．Methodology
The nationwide survey was conveyed between the months of June to
September 2001 by CRES2).

It focused on the monitors who were hired by

the CIES in 1998, 1999 and 2000.

A letter had sent to them by email,which had the possibility to access directly to a blank questionnaire.

In

5190 Monitors existing at the time of the survey, 3327 responded to ourquestionnaire (64% of total).

The sample is widely representative, be-cause a very high rate (almost two monitors on three) participated in thesurvey.

The ease of access and completion of questionnaire had probably

helped getting an excellent response rate.
The survey's goal was to find the essential data on monitors’ prior path(school, high school and higher education career) and family, in order tohave a better understanding of their activities and perceptions as newteachers and their career plan.

We asked monitors to describe theirexperiences related to their teaching, research or pedagogical training
which followed by CIES and their relation with their colleagues andstudents.

The questionnaire proposed several open questions in order forthem to express different aspects of their teaching experience.
The internal rate of responses to different questions was very high,including the open questions.

For none open questions, the average was

95% and for open questions, the average was 85%.

3．Main Findings about Monitors’ Profile
The analysis of monitors’ path (school and higher education career)
showed they were an elite group in the student population.

All indicatorsof their academic career converge: a school career without “fault”, very
little repetition (85% without repeating), the scientific dominance (79%) andliterature (11%) field in high school, a high proportion who obtained theirbaccalauréat3) with a good mention (71%).

67% of the monitors havecompleted their Masters degree before reaching 25.

201

Monitors mainly belonged to families culturally and/or economically“privileged”.

In two thirds of families, at least one parent had graduatedfrom a university and nearly 30% of monitors have at least one parent who
works in education or research fields.

Even though a minority of them

did not come from privileged families, the dominant figure among themonitors was an “inheritor” (Bourdieu et Passeron, 1964).
Sixty percent of men and forty percent of constituted the monitors.
The minority place of women must however be understood in relation tothe ongoing feminization of faculty in France.

Women are much more

numerous in the “no scientific” disciplines, biological and medical sciences.
The monitors were in the majority (88%) between 24 and 28 years (in2001).

The average age at the time of the survey was 26.3 years; theaverage age at entry into CIES was 24.5 years.
Response monitors to various questions relating to motivations andplans for the future clearly reflect the desire and willingness to integrate
higher education as lecturer or researcher.

The vast majority (91%)

monitors demonstrated their interest in teaching, or think that CIES facilitate their future recruitment as lecturer (69%).

The financial advan-

tages are mentioned by 75% of monitors as motivation for choosing CIES.
About the future, the most important project for the vast majority was
to become full time lecturer: 68% of monitors ranked this vow in the firstplace, 19% as the second choice and 4% as third choice.
monitors out of 100 plans to integrate higher education.

In total, 91

Research in the

public sector is the second monitors’ wish: 16% of them want primarily aprofession of research in the public sector (40% indicate in second and 9%
in third preference).

Finally, working in the private research companies

is the first choice by only 5% of monitors (respectively 12% and 22% assecond and third choice).

4．Construction of Professional Identity
CIES’ experience allows monitors to be involved to a process of professional identity’s construction.

They began to work in a complex in-

stitution which they already lived with another status (student).

202

How-

Becoming a Teacher in University
ever, entering the academic world did not constitute a rupture.

This isnot a big leap into the unknown for those young people who knew alreadythe system otherwise.

Now, they must develop a progressive member-ship and rediscover the university as a teacher.

The first dimension ofexperience was the definition of their role and learning their new career inan environment where the human relational dimension is fundamental.
The survey data tended to explain the complexity of the construction of
the new identity of the apprentice teacher: “The opportunity is given to us

in relational, pedagogical and intellectual level for imparting a knowledge,a method and a “taste”” (literature, University of Pau)4) . A student
turned to “snap” to a teacher.

However, they are recognized likemember of community when they succeed to understand and to practiceroutines, specific rituals and unwritten rules of the profession: “I had thechance to share my experience with other young colleagues. Overall, I
am satisfied with this first teaching experience because it allowed me tosee that I was able to teach! (History, University of Paris 1)”. Throughdaily activities, monitors must show to others (director, colleagues, students, and administrative staff) their new status and their adherence in theacademics world.

As we can see through the monitors’ discourse, therecognition of others is a co-construction act.
The new identity as a teacher seems to be built in three acts:- Integrating to a teaching team consisting of professors and otherteaching staffs.
- Scientific research and publication give them a sense of belonging to an
academic group and an intellectual community.
- Preparing and giving a course and direct contact with students is asignificant experience to practice the teaching profession.
The monitors began a process of secondary socialization through the ‟internalization of sub-specialized institutional worlds” (Berger & luckman,
1996).

These three acts were actively involved in a dense and trans-

formative socialization.

Research and teaching as two separate compo-

nents gave a dual nature to this identity.
The experience of teaching, with its launch so quick, (they went very
quickly “on the other side”) was qualified by the vast majority of monitors203as revealing: “I think CIES throws us into the lions coop, alone in combat.
The first year was very difficult to manage in many aspects: organization,lead a class (computer sciences, University of Nantes)”. They must incorporate a world of common sense which is far from being obvious.

The

real deficiency of this experience was often weak support and inability of
the University to assist future teachers efficiently.

The difficulties

sometimes prevented that CIES became a “conversion device”: “I havetaught and I feel enriched without having any significant help. I regretthat the pedagogic help has been a chimera” (literature, University ofBesancon).
From the first weeks, monitors were expected to act as an experienced
teacher to students who may have the same age.
professional is not purely a technical process.

Becoming an adultThis work takes time andrequires a certain maturity, both, professional, social and emotional.

The

teaching, as a professional situation, is the time of “secondary socialization” that takes place, according to Berger and Luckmann, through the“internalization of sub-specialized institutional worlds” (1997, p.189).

The

CIES’ experience enabled monitors to acquire knowledge and develop
specific roles directly or indirectly based on the division of labor within theuniversity.

Teaching is a field of action in which the monitors have tolearn a combination of knowledge, practices and skills.

Such profession-als’ knowledge contributes significantly to develop a new identity.

Thissocialization in work situation involves a cultural transformation.

Inother words, the socialization we are talking about is not reduced to merefamiliarity with the workplace (university), and its culture and values.

It

put the interactions between actors at the heart of social action: “I dis-cover the teaching profession while I planned to research only, and I believe today that I am infected with teaching s “viruses”. I passionately
love my course; education is a real pleasure” (physiology, University of
Aix-Marseille 3).
Working as a monitor is not only an economic transaction (earning asalary); it has a strong symbolic and imaginary dimension.

The educa-

tional career is always exposed to the myths, beliefs and desires in relation
to society and individuals.

204

The monitors seemed fairly adhere to theBecoming a Teacher in University
educational community and its ideals and values.

On behalf of these“values” that some monitors engaged in this job and justify their careerplan.

In this perspective, the construction of identity is realized throughan emotional and imaginary process.

Despite the temporary nature of

their status, monitors developed a strategy of the mobilization of theirabilities and desires.

The main challenge was to confirm the relevance ofthe pedagogical and research work within the scientific community andamong students.
This construction of identity among the monitors did not always happen
in the ‟ideal” conditions.
traumatic.

The discovery of the mass university can be

Instead of the ideal and imaginative university, they often met

the real university with its problems.

This disillusionment did not block

the progress of experience among the monitors.
accomplish their mission.

They tried to adapt andThose who disappointed adjusted their plans toabandon the original idea of teaching.
The lexical analysis that was done from an open question shows that
despite of the difficulties, the majority of the monitors have enjoyed theirexperience.

In 3022 monitors who responded to a question about eval-uation of their job, 2658 (88%) used terms that described a positive experience of teaching.
The survey results revealed that the monitors’ experience was often
marked by four challenges: the coexistence between research andteaching, teaching practice, integration to academics’ world and the relation with the students.

5．Link Between Research and Teaching
The tension on the link between teaching and research was one of thefirst discoveries by monitors.

What was a “natural combination” in theirinitial perception becomes a real problem.

The monitors realized a con-flicting coexistence between these two missions: “The two activities taketoo much time: I do not know how the lecturers can deal with teaching andresearch and having a normal life” (Physics, University of Joseph Fourier).
The diversity of opinions expressed by the monitors revealed that the205relation between these two activities was far from obvious to everyone: “Irealized that teaching was very difficult and demanding. It is difficult tofind a real reward for teaching” (biology, University of Aix-Marseille I).
Contexts and experiences vary greatly, and monitors do not appreciatethem the same way.

Some believed in the compatibility between these

two activities, and some emphasized on the complementarily of them.
Ideal for certain was to oscillate between research and teaching, useteaching to examine research and reveal the key issues and present theresults of research to students.

“The combination of teaching and re-search seems ideal: each activity affects the other activity positively.
Teaching opens up new areas for research and we transfer a part of ourresearch experience in teaching” (Mechanics, University of Paris 13).
The tension between teaching and research was not only reduced to thetime they spent in each activity, it is often amplified by the institutional
factors related to the functional logic of the academic profession.

The

monitors found that the evaluation of their activities for recruitment or
promotion would focus mainly on research and publications.

They dis-covered that teaching (teaching load, office hours and informal contact
with students) was not really valued professionally at the university.
Research and publications are the most important activities in the academic culture and career.

In this perspective, the monitors asked why tospend a lot of time for preparation and improvement of teaching?
“Teaching is a good learning and contact with students is very interesting.

But, if you want to apply for the post of Lecturer, teaching’s importancedoes not count on a resume” (Pharmacy, University of Paris 11).
The monitors must be able to motivate themselves to engage in pedagogy.

Their preference for being a teacher-researcher is often moti-

vated by the human environment and the intellectual transaction.
Education was often perceived as a personal pleasure while research wasconsidered important to succeed his profession: “The teaching combines

the non-ordinary human relations, the relation to knowledge, and the relation to teaching. The articulation is sometimes frustrating when there
is a tension between teaching and research” (economy, University of
Bordeaux IV).

206

Becoming a Teacher in University
The contradictions generated by the association between research andteaching may also discourage some of them despite a positive assessmentof the teaching experience.

The opposition between these two activities“Good experience has shown me that
I'm not overflowing passion for the profession. This showed me that you
can not do both missions seriously” (Physics, University of Lyon I).

seemed to be more vivid in science.

The tension between teaching and research was one of the firstawareness of monitors and worried them.
the majority of the monitors.

This was a big frustration for

The time devoted to teaching seemed“useless” and “waste of time” for some monitors.

They realized thatteaching was not much visibility outside the department; it was not valued
on a professional and formal recognition in which it remained largely invisible.

However, research is widely recognized both within the aca-

demic institution, scientific community and in the society.

They un-derstood too that faculty tended to be more worried about their research
projects than their teaching.
The monitors faced the ambivalence of institutional discourse.

On oneside, CIES proposed strength training to enhance the mission of teaching.
On the other hand, the academic culture and institutional practices continued to place clear emphasis on the importance of research.

Teaching

may be “rewarding”, “interesting”, “formative”, “seductive”, “satisfactory”, but it is rarely “necessary” or “essential”.

It is quite revealing tonote that the developments of this feeling among the instructors appear at
the beginning of their career: “The profession of teacher-researcher would

be quite nice if the whole career development was not assessed mainly on
research” (Computer sciences, University of Toulouse III). This contradiction was also underlined in Viry’s survey on faculty (2006) or by thereport of Simon (2006) on the teaching mission.

L.

Viry described thecontradiction between increasingly demand for teaching activities andinstitution’s practice focused on research (2006, p.
B.

202).

The analysis ofGalinon Mélènec who evoked a painful gap in the academic careergoes in the same direction.

207

6．Teaching Experience
The monitors said they had met series of problems related to teaching.
They complained of working in a fragmented and atomized environment.
Similarly, the university’s pedagogical framework seemed “fuzzy” andinconsistent sometimes.

Early in their experience, monitors were facedwith number of important issues related to course preparation and students’ assessment.

They often criticized the university for lack of global

pedagogical strategy: “We need training to teach well, we know how toteach not because we have succeeded in our studies” (Biochemistry,
University of Louis Pasteur).
They had various problems concerning the teaching methods by which
the course would be taught, the assessment methods and the evaluation
methods, by which the course would be reviewed and improved “Theassessment of students is very difficult for me. I never learned how to doit. My supervisor suggested dealing with it. I'm afraid of being unfair
and it really bothers me” (Earth and planetary Sciences, University ofRennes 1).

The teaching methods as so many other issues have rarely

become the subject of collective debate in the pedagogical team. “Myclasses have gone very well. I only regret the lack of consideration andthe total lack of integration into a teaching staff that does not exist・・・(Economy, University of Pierre Mendes France)”.
The answers given by the monitors showed that the first step in the
new experience was the most delicate and difficult.

In response to aquestion about the major difficulties encountered in the course of theirexperience, 37% mentioned difficulties in the preparation of classes, and
25% said that they felt tense while teaching.

They must overcome thepsychological barriers to assert themselves as a teacher.

According tomonitors, the original “fear” was often followed by a self confidence
feeling.
The monitors were concerned about the relevance of teaching methods
and their impact on student learning.

Some training provided by the

CIES and the exchanges and contacts with other monitors or colleagues
could help them to improve teaching methods.

208

However, their inexpe-

Becoming a Teacher in University
rience and loneliness bothered them sometimes: “I am not always able topresent things in a simple and understandable manner. I expected ateaching aid. But I did not find support” (Geography, University of
Versailles-Saint Quentin).

C.

Musselin and E.

Friedberg (1989) notedin their survey on teachers lack of collective work in university departments.

The first monitors’ experience confirmed the results of previous

investigations.

The luckiest ones were those who were accompanied andassisted by a teaching team or by an experienced supervisor.

Somemonitors went further when their pedagogy did not meet the expected
They tried new teaching methods: “It is a very nice experience,
rewarding and also very pleasant. I discovered the university, but, unfortunately, I see the lack of true teaching team, I had to find the pedagogical solution by myself” (Electrokinetics, University of Orleans).

success.

Although monitors generally appreciated the training of the CIES, theyexpressed a number of criticisms.

Sometime the monitors seemed toprepare their courses with their own experience as a student, but theyrealized that on top of that “intuitive” knowledge, they must know morethings for a relevant course: “The three years of teaching experience andtraining seminars with CIES allow obtaining a clearer view of academic
career, to enhance our own teaching abilities” (Law, University of Nantes).
The critics about the training programs focused on contents, duration,organization or the mandatory aspect of training seminars.

Some courses

were more appreciated: the teaching techniques (voice, conducting
meetings, and reading skills), student learning theories and analysis of thecontext of higher education.

Their most important criticisms concerned

the abstract aspects of the seminars (too theoretical), unrelated training
topics, the lack of practical topics (related to daily tasks like preparing acourse or assessment).
The act of teaching was an overwhelming work for monitors who often
found teaching like an attractive, exciting and stimulating activity.

Theysaid that they had great satisfaction when students were learning, progressing and expressing their gratitude.

209

7．Enter to the Academic LifeOne of the key dimensions in the experience of monitors at the university was establishing relation with faculty.

They made an effective

entry into the social world of lecturers through daily contacts.

This wasa crucial element of the construction of professional identity and theformative socialization within the University.
The survey showed that monitors’ relation with the teachers teamwork - was not a very appreciated academic practice.

Academics

are largely autonomous, and are often rewarded only for their work as
independent researchers or teachers.

C.

Musselin and E.

Friedberg

emphasized that the academic work at French universities was primarily
solitary and uncoordinated and did not create interdependence between
faculties (1989).

The problem is that the university does not require thefaculty teamwork; they are not obliged to cooperate to accomplish their
missions (Fave-Bonnet 1993).
Individualistic attitude of teachers surprised the monitors.

The

teaching issues did not become the subject of authentic teamwork in eachdepartment.

They complained because of the lack of discussion on pe-

dagogical problems.

“The first time is really hard: We do not receive any

help or advice from colleagues (except monitors a little older than us)”・・・(Geography, University of Paris IV) .
In the organization of CIES, each monitor is formally followed by asupervisor (an experienced professor) who should help her or him to integrate in their new environment.

According to the survey

s data, only

25% of monitors said that they met with their supervisor weekly, 25%monthly, 19% once a semester, 19% once a year and almost 12% never.
The role of teaching supervisor, when properly completed, may be crucial
in supporting the monitor in its first steps as a teacher.
The survey asked monitors to give their views on their relations withother academics.

According to the results, the monitors were relatively

satisfied of their relation with lecturers.

The most frequent responses

were expressed as followed: “frequent exchanges” (53%), “friendly andattentive reception” (48%), and “help and advice received” (46%).

210

These

Becoming a Teacher in University
responses clearly reflected the positive aspect of their individual relation
with lecturers.

However, monitors seemed significantly less appreciate

the internal and collective life of their departments: 38% of them mentioned the teamwork experience and only 29% said they have participatedin the internal life of the department.

Another important information of

the investigation concerned the impact of disciplinary context (the department).

Generally, the monitors from technical and scientific discip-lines appreciated the teamwork more than the monitors of other fields.
We know that science and technology offer more collective frameworks
within the laboratory and humanities’ academics prefere individual activities.
Analysis of negative terms to describe their relation with teachers
revealed the existence of three types of criticism: the hierarchical relation,lack of teamwork, and a feeling of “exclusion” as the most violent manifestation of human relation within the University.

The criticism of thehierarchical link reflects the discovery of a social environment dominatedby the power relation: “My experience is a little mitigated by the fact thatin a university as important, the ties between teachers are often superficial. In the middle of Professors of the Sorbonne the monitors are a bit“small class”” (Literature, University of Paris IV).

8．The Contact with the Student
We could often find two different discourses about students.

A re-current criticism is reproduced about their conception and approach oflearning: a gap exist between monitors and students because of theirrelation to knowledge.

They noticed a lack of intellectual effort andcompared it with their own experience.

But many positive points andcomments about their human relations mentioned.
The greatest difficulties outlined by monitors refer to student learningand their conception of learning.

Thus, monitors emphasized the lack ofintellectual “appetite” among the students (50% of monitors believe thiswas the most important difficulty).

They observed that some students

lacked in curiosity, interest and motivation to continue their studies.

In

211

short, according to monitors, students expressed sometimes a culture andan attitude incompatible with the university.

As new teachers, they had

a hard task in connection with the first-year students.

For “freshmen”

students, the first year is a turning point for understanding the academic
world and developing a relevant conception of learning.
Unilaterally, the monitors tended often to establish a relation with thestudents through their relation with their own educational experience.
Both behaviors - lack of intellectual “appetite” and truancy - disappointed
a large number of monitors.

The studies show that student culture isinvaded by the utilitarian tendency and they tend increasingly to caremore about graduation and career than intellectual interest (Coulon,
Paivandi, 2008).

The terms of the monitors showed that there was a realdifference with the students’ relation to knowledge and relation to academic culture.

The relation between teacher and student is organizedaround knowledge.

The two partners often tend to adopt two different

perspectives vis-à-vis the academic knowledge.

The student who ismainly concerned about his employability would be an anti-model ofteacher’s “ideal student”.

This shift caused permanent frustration

among the monitors: ‟It's an interesting experience, but I discovered thatthe teaching profession was not a passion for me because of Students who
are not very motivated (geology, University of Louis Pasteur).
Monitors’ critical discourse was not often very different from that oflecturers (Coulon, Paivandi, 2008).

For monitors also some students werea “problem group” (Martuccelli, 1995): “passivity”, “lack of motivation”,“utilitarian behavior”, “insufficient level”, and “immaturity”.

The mon-itors were concerned about those who “have no real career plan” or “whoare confused in their learning orientations”.
However, the monitors spoke of “good” and “bad” students at the sametime, they worked with students who were “interested”, “motivated”,“less motivated”, “lost” or “passive”.

For this reason, the monitors often

mentioned the great heterogeneity of students in their classes.

The

quality of exchanges, reciprocal communication and friendly dialogue withstudents are the most positive point for the monitors.
pressed by their students’ confidence.

212

They were im-

The monitors noticed that despite

Becoming a Teacher in University
the small age difference with students, they could have good relations withstudents: “I fear that my young age is a disadvantage but it has proven an

asset to communicate (Sociology, University of Paris V).”

They weresometimes seduced by a kind of complicity linked to this erasure of the
traditional distance that could exist between a student and a teacher.
Indeed, the generational proximity may have a downside: “Former student,
young teacher, I’m divided between two attitudes: the sympathetic friend
or strict teacher (Process engineering, University of Louis Paster)”.
To better understand the relation between students and monitors, onemust recognize the structure of pedagogy in university.
involve small groups of students in the workshops.
small structures are attractive to students.

Monitors often

Unlike the lecture,

Developing a direct andpersonal relation with the teacher is easy in workshops, but difficult in
lectures.

The individualization of the relation, understanding, reductionof severity, encouragement, mutual recognition, changes the teachingclimate and creates a dynamic intersubjective between monitors andstudents.

The monitors emphasized the importance of reciprocal com-munication with students: “They can deal with my blunders and respect a

novice teacher despite my mistakes and hesitations”.

The lack of expe-

rience of the monitors seemed to be “compensated” with good and emotional relation.

The good relation with students was a determining

factor for developing a sense of self confidence.

The monitors empha-

sized on the good atmosphere of course as an important educational
component to promote student learning.

Precisely, that is what lacks in auniversity and monitors attempted fulfill students’ affective need.

9．Conclusion
Monitors Experience is automatically an authentic analyzer the Frenchhigher education.

The neophyte teachers discover the different dimen-

sions of an unusual career in situ by adjusting their perceptions.

The

monitors faced challenges which created tense situations, but they admitted to become familiar with the inside of academic profession.
found also that research was more valuable than teaching.

They

A significant

213

number of monitors perceived themselves as academic; this identity“leap” was the most important achievement of this experience.

Our

survey showed clearly that CIES’ objective to encourage the best students to work in higher education was achieved.
This temporary status gives them a posture to judge objectively someelements of university life.

The originality of their observation depends

on their situation, between the two: dual membership as a student and ateacher simultaneously, they represent the “fresh” spirit of the university.
Critical issues such as articulation between research and teaching, academic career’s learning, pedagogical training, mission of teaching, evaluation of teaching, pedagogy and educational relation lay at the heart ofmonitors’ discourse.

The monitors’ experience showed that the teach-ing in higher education should be learned like any other professions.
The CIES is the first effort made at national level in the field of faculty
development in French higher education.

This significant innovation has

been around for the past 20 years, but its impact has remained limited andfaculty training has not developed much.

There are a few centers offaculty development “SUP” (University Service of Pedagogy) created by
local and individual initiative, but professors do not seem to appreciate thisnew professionalism in academic career.

The academic culture resists

changes in teaching, and it will be a big challenge for the future of theuniversity in France.
An optimistic perspective may be positive effects of new reforms.

The

reform of LMD requires the evaluation of teaching and the new autonomy
granted to the universities (LRU 2007) is supposed to enhance locally theteaching and the faculty development.

Maybe we should wait several

years to see their real impact on pedagogy and faculty development.

214

Becoming a Teacher in University
Notes
1) The new law (LRU 2007) gave more autonomy to the universities; the CIES
is not centralized as before.
2) Center for Research in Higher Education, University of Paris 8.
3) French high school-leaving certificate.
4) Monitor literature working in university of Pau.
References
Berger P. L., Luckmann T., 1966, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatisein the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Bourdieu P., Passeron J.-C., 1964, Les héritiers.

Les étudiants et la culture.

Paris, Les Éditions de Minuit.
Coulon A., Paivandi S., 2008, Les relations entre les étudiants, les enseignants etle personnel non-enseignant dans les établissements supérieurs en France.
Paris : Observatoire nationale de la vie étudiante.
Coulon A., R. Ennafaa, S. Paivandi, 2004, Devenir enseignant du supérieur.
Paris : L

Harmattan.

Fave-Bonnet M. F., 1993, Les enseignants-chercheurs physiciens. Paris : INRP.
Galinon-Mélénec B., 1996, L enseignant-chercheur au sein d une situation
complexe et contingente encore insuffisamment analysée, in Danny J., Romainville M. Enseigner à l Université.
Bruxelles : De Boeck Université, 11-31.
Martuccelli D., 1995, Décalages.

Un métier qui s apprend ?

Paris : PUF.

Musselin C., Friedberg E., 1989, En quête d'universités. Paris : L'Harmattan.
Simon T., 2006, Accueil et orientation des nouveaux étudiants dans les un-

iversités.

Rapport, Ministère de l

Education nationale, de lment supérieur et de la recherche (France).
Viry L., 2006, Le monde vécu des universitaires.

enseigne-

Rennes : PUR.

215

フランスにおける大学教員準備プログラムの展開−フランス初の FD の試み−
サイード・ぺヴァンディ＜要旨＞

本稿の目的は、フランスの大学で実施されている大学教員養成制度（「モニター制度」）に関する調査結果を紹介することである。この制
度は、高等教育教員入門センター（CIES）が博士課程在籍者の中から優秀な学生を選抜し、大学教育の一部を担当させるというものである。
彼らは「モニター」と呼ばれる。この取組は、過去 20 年間フランス
高等教育が全国レベルで行った事実上最初のファカルティ・ディベロップメントであった。この制度に関する最初の全国調査は、2001 年に84 大学のモニター3,327 人に対して行われた。
本稿では、モニターが初心者として、モニターがアカデミック社会と接触した経験について分析した。彼らは、主に以下の経験から多くを学んでいる。すなわち、①研究と教育、②教育実践と訓練経験、③教職員との個人的関係と所属組織における集団生活、④学生との教育的関係と社会的な相互関係の４項目である。彼らにとって、この経験はしばしば緊張を要するものではあったが、同時に大学教員職に親しんだり、職業アイデンティティ構築のプロセスに誘ったりするものであった。

パリ第８大学高等教育研究センター・准教授
名古屋大学高等教育研究センター・客員教授

216