چکیده:
Personnage clé de l’enseignement, l’enseignant occupe une place centrale dans le milieu
scolaire. Accompagnant la vie des enfants, il peut jouer un rôle important dans l’avenir de chaque
société. Sensibles à ce rôle, certains auteurs, en Iran et en France, à travers leur écrits romanesques ou autobiographiques (récits scolaires), mettent à notre disposition des figures qui pourraient être considérées comme modèle ou anti-modèle du bon enseignant. Dans ce travail, on s’intéresse de près à ces figures pour savoir ce que pourraient être les exigences de l’enseignement. Cela devrait nous amener à dresser une typologie du « bon » enseignant. Pour délimiter ce vaste sujet ainsi qu’orienter notre travail vers une perspective pragmatique et effective, on se contente des relations pédagogiques qui mettent en
rapport l’Instance scolaire à l’enseigné par l’intermédiaire de l’enseignant dans le but de la «
transmission du savoir ». Cela nous permettra de remettre en lumière la grandeur de la « mission »
d’enseignant.
اموزگار بهعنوان شخصیت کلیدی «اموزش»، جایگاهی اصلی در محیط مدرسه ایفا میکند و بهخاطر مرافقت با کودک میتواند نقشی بسزا در اینده هر جامعهای ایفا کند. «ادبیات مدرسه»، چه در ایران و چه در فرانسه، نسبت به این موضوع حساس بوده و چهرههایی را بهعنوان الگو یا پادالگویی از اموزگار «خوب» عرضه کرده است. تمرکزمان در این مطالعه بر این چهرهها خواهد بود تا الزامات اموزش را بهتر بشناسیم و به دستهبندیای از ویژگیهای اموزگار «خوب» دست یابیم. برای کاستن از گستردگی کار و نیز بخشیدن سویهای عملی و کارا بدان، به روابط اموزشی بسنده میکنیم؛ روابطی که نهاد اموزش وپرورش را در راستای «انتقال دانش» از طریق اموزگار به محصل پیوند میزنند. هم از این مسیر خواهیم کوشید بر عظمت «رسالت» معلم صحه بگذاریم.
Among the many characters who fill the school scene, the role of the teacher is
considered more important than the others. This finds an absolute resonance with social reality, if one
thinks of the preponderant place of the teacher in the school system. Quantitatively, the faculty makes
up three fourth of the professionals in the school system. This is why Bourdieu and Passeron call teachers
as ‟interchangeable agents” of the School Authority. Likewise, at the qualitative level, we cannot neglect
the great role that the teacher plays in the transmission of knowledge as an essential objective of the
education system. Indeed, it is relatively impossible to imagine school without a teacher. Even where
the number of school staff remains quite limited, one of them must necessarily fulfill this function. Even
if nowadays we can replace face-to-face lessons with virtual education, or organize school time in a way
other than annual (that is to say transform school space-time), the teacher remains the inseparable part
of the process of transmitting knowledge. As a result, there is a need for more particular attention to the
status of the teacher as represented in the literature, in order to better understanding the issues related to
this profession, as well as those of the school environment.
To achieve this objective, we imagine a triangle with three essential actors of the educational scene
who establish a pedagogical relationship between them: school, teacher and learner. Indeed, if we
consider the transmission of knowledge (teaching) as the objective of the education system, the hero of
this quest can only be the teacher. Indeed, it seems that what largely impacts the way in which this quest
is completed (with success or failure) is the link that the hero establishes with the other angles of the
triangle: with the school, with his profession and the subject he teaches and with the learner. It should
be noted that these links can take on various aspects and therefore be studied from various angles. In
addition, the transmission of knowledge is certainly influenced by other elements going beyond the
pedagogical relationships presented above. What interests us here is knowing the teaching profession
and its challenges in order to obtain a typology of the ‟good” teacher. This is why we limit ourselves to
this triangle which includes the three essential actors of the educational scene whose relationship can
significantly impact the result of the teacher’s work. Of course, this typology is the result of a reading
that admits its heuristic or even interpretive character, even if it remains subject to the injunctions of the
chosen texts.
Tabatabaee N; Shahverdiani N— The Representation of the “Good” Teacher in a Selection of… | 168
In this study, we were able to emphasize the importance of the autonomy and individual intervention of the teacher in his relationship with the School Authority. He must know how to be a part of the system without diluting himself in it. In fact, by virtue of its heterogeneous and impersonal character, the School Authority does not go to a systematic typology; yet we can find in our texts a relatively unanimous criticism of certain characteristics of the School Authority compared to a ‟wise old man, bearded, lonely and omniscient” who lives in his ivory tower. Where the teacher may be dependent or indifferent to the pedagogical theories that emanate from the Authority, the ‟good” teacher shows initiative to achieve his goal. Indeed, the transmission of knowledge dates much more than current teaching methods. Relying too much on normative discourse to the detriment of individual creativity, cannot help the teacher to solve all the problems he encounters on his way. On the contrary, it even risks turning it into a machine just like the Institution. Thus, it is less pedagogical training than the passionate relationship with the profession that can guarantee the result of the teacher’s work. Thus, after the relationship that the teacher establishes with the Institution, the second criterion that can define the result of his work is the link that attaches him to his profession.
In this regard, three characteristics can help us to better classify the figures of the teacher in the texts of our corpus: passion, conviction and stubbornness. The first character goes back to the teacher’s past, the second talks about his present, and the third is about his future. Regarding aspiration, two types of teacher can be identified in our texts: those who choose this profession by chance, those whose choice lies in love. After love comes belief in a job: conviction. Here again two types of teacher are represented by our authors: there are those who make fun of the banality of their work and those who ‟believed in their profession”. After love and belief, the third criterion which largely impacts the outcome of the work of teaching and thus distinguishes a good teacher from a bad example, is stubbornness or ‟conviction despite everything”. The ‟ everything” can still take on various aspects. Indeed, the difficulties of teaching work can each be related to one of the angles of our triangle. Sometimes it is in the face of problems, or even lack of institutional order, that the teacher must experience obstinacy; sometimes he is invited to resist in the face of doubts and the precariousness of his profession which precisely target his love and his conviction; sometimes he has to show determination to help children who have difficulty integrating into the school environment. In other words, if the teacher considers that a learner is less intelligent, is invited to make every effort to get him out of his condition. With this last point, we are gradually approaching the third angle of our triangle: what our authors require or even advice regarding the link established between teacher and learner.
As we know, the Institution is formed by its impersonal character. This establishes a certain distance in the child / adult relationship. In order for the transmission of knowledge to be carried out satisfactorily, the teacher is asked to bridge this distance by his individual initiative, by his personal touch. Thus, it seems that where the relationship between teacher and learner is placed under the sign of empathy, learner success is highly likely. Indeed, the impersonal nature of the Institution makes it incapable of considering particular cases. However, it is often the latter who become the hero of the novel, precisely because of their particularity. These cases allow the authors to compare two possible positions of teachers: those who prefer not to interfere, putting all the inefficiencies of the system behind the teacher’s back; those who, on the other hand, put all their zeal for the benefit of the child, thus betting on the inefficiency of the system. Thus, if the authors are frequently interested in this interaction between the individual and the Institution, it is both to criticize the shortcomings of the School Authority and to highlight individual initiatives as the only possible solution. If we accept that the rupture of the family world can be one of the essential reasons for anguish and “school sorrow”, our authors invite teachers to fill this gap and cover this rupture by playing the role of companion with the child: a repository of knowledge who does not abuse his power.
In 2011, Abdolhossein Azarang by publishing his autobiography set out to fill the lack of ‟written experiences” capable of learning how to be a ‟good” teacher. In the same vein, our work has been an effort to find the possible answers to this question through a thematic reading of certain texts belonging to the literary institution. Even so, there is not a single text that claims to have a definitive answer to this question, but taken together it would be possible to have an outline of what a ‟good” teacher should be. Curious are the enormous similarities that can exist between our French and Iranian texts, the publication dates of which sometimes differ by about thirty years. Indeed, even if the teaching methods keep improving and even changing, it seems that the essence of the profession remains immutable. What we have tried to highlight in this work.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Pour délimiter ce vaste sujet ainsi qu'orienter notre travail vers une perspective pragmatique et effective, on se contente des relations pédagogiques qui mettent en rapport l'Instance scolaire à l'enseigné par l'intermédiaire de l'enseignant dans le but de la « transmission du savoir ».
Pour réaliser cet objectif, on considère l'enseignant comme un agent entre Instance scolaire et élève, et se propose d'étudier les « relations pédagogiques » que cet agent établit tour à tour avec le destinateur et le destinataire de cette tâche, ainsi qu'avec la tâche elle- même.
Par contre, le deuxième type du traitement dont l'exemple ne manque pas dans les textes de notre corpus, s'investit ouvertement dans la voie qui nous intéresse ici, c'est-à-dire désigner ce qu'exigent nos romanciers d'un bon enseignant.
Pour réaliser cet objectif, on imagine un triangle (figure 1) avec pour angles les trois acteurs essentiels de la scène éducative qui établissent une relation pédagogique entre eux : l'Institution ou l'Instance scolaire ; l'enseignant ; l'enseigné.
RELATION DE L'ENSEIGNANT AVEC L'INSTANCE SCOLAIRE Commençons pas la relation que peut établir l'enseignant avec l'Instance scolaire, en précisant un point préliminaire : une telle distinction assez nette entre l'Institution et l'enseignant dans le processus de la transmission du savoir, doit être considérée comme une injonction de la part de nos textes.
L'image dont on peut trouver l'équivalent dans le texte de Sepehri, là où l'auteur nous parle de son maître de peinture qui est décrit justement « proche » des enfants et donc « loin », voire différent de l'Instance : « Le cours de peinture était agréable et souple.