Does "Mise-en-shot" actually exist or is my teacher making stuff up?

So I'm a film student currently going through some theoretical coursework, and my teacher keeps using this term "mise-en-shot" — claiming it's an actual cinematic concept like mise-en-scène. According to her, it was coined by Soviet filmmaker Sergei Eisenstein (which already sounds fishy to me), and it basically refers to camera work, shot types, movement, etc. — almost like a French umbrella term for cinematography or blocking.

Now I know mise-en-scène is well-established and studied: it refers to everything placed in front of the camera (lighting, actors, setting, costume, etc.). But this mise-en-shot thing? I can't find much concrete academic reference to it in textbooks or even trusted databases.

After digging a bit, I came across Christian Metz's Film Language: A Semiotics of the Cinema (1974), and he does mention mise-en-shot as the counterpart to mise-en-scène, referring to the "arrangement of shots" — shot length, angle, movement, montage, etc. But even that isn't widely discussed today. It seems like Metz used it as a conceptual aid for semiotic analysis, not as a major filmmaking term in practice.

So my question is:
Does mise-en-shot actually have a legitimate place in film theory, or is it just a Frankenstein term that teachers sometimes use to simplify complex stuff like cinematography, staging, and camera work?

I’d love to hear from anyone who's studied film formally or has academic/theoretical insight. Is this a forgotten theory term or just bad pedagogy?