The training of university teachers as transformative intellectuals or reflective practitioners (Reimão, 2001) should be an emerging practice. This reality should be guided by criteria of excellence and contribute to teachers’ career progression. In this domain, several authors (Barbier, 1993; Marcelo, 2002) have warned about the lack of information in this matter on the subject. We need more information about rules, objectives, times and types of skills related to teacher training and we need to develop knowledge about the impact and transfer of such training as well as more information about available tools to measure those factors.

The transfer of training occurs when knowledge, skills and attitudes acquired during the training programme are used in the workplace (Newstrom, 1986). Organizations will not be interested about learning acquired in training if it is not transferred for workplace (Yamnill & McLean, 2001).

For transfer be really effective
new skills must be used and maintained for a period of time after the training process (Baldwin and Ford, 1988). According to these authors, the generalization and maintenance of training content in the workplace is directly influenced by three major factors:  (i) trainee characteristics (ability, personality and motivation); (ii) work environment (support, opportunity to use); (iii) retention of learning which, in turn, is influenced by training design, including principles of learning, training sequence and content. According to Holton (1996), learning transfer is influenced by three key aspects (Holton, 1996). 

In this context, the "Iberoamerican network for the development of a technological platform to support the evaluation of training processes" (RIDEFOR - reference 512RT0443 of CYTED), is developing a technological platform to support the evaluation of training processes, seeking to create a repository of free online tools and resources that can be used by several institutions concerned with the university teacher’s training.

RIDEFOR consists of transdisciplinary teams of experts from several countries (Portugal, Spain, Costa Rica, Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Mexico), with a high level of conceptual and academic knowledge, and also of computer and technological development (e.g. in the design and development of a virtual platform management and content access). Each working group coordinated by a person with institutional responsibilities, who will best ensure the implementation of project activities. Each team is responsible for entering, referencing and classifying the instruments added to the platform, based on an evaluation schedule which sets forth certain parameters that are inherent in the formation such as content (instrumental, reflective ...), modality (course, seminar, module ...), duration (short, medium or long), etc., allowing the exchange of training models and the development of strategies for effective evaluation of these.

Virtual meetings are held monthly, so that teams can take stock and reorder and deliver tasks. Once a year, an annual meeting is hosted by one of the teams, with the purpose of presenting the main results of the work done throughout the year.

In this paper we intend to describe, in particular, the process of building a set of tools for evaluating the transfer of training, especially in the context of training of university teachers, developed by the RIDEFOR working group.

Baldwin, T. T., Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41(1), pp. 63-105. Barbier, J. M. (1993). La evaluación en los procesos de formación. Barcelona: Paidós/MEC. Broad, M., Newstrom, J. (2000). Cómo Aplicar el Aprendizaje al Puesto de Trabajo. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Ramón Areces. Feixas, M. (2006). Cuestionario para el análisis de la orientación docente del profesor universitario. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 24(1), pp. 97-118. Holton, E. F. III (2005). Holton's evaluation model: New evidence and construct elaborations. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(37), pp. 37-54. Holton, E. F. III. (1996). The flawed four-level evaluation model. Human Resource Quarterly, 7, pp. 5-21. Kirkpatrick, D.; Kirkpatrick, J. (2000). Evaluación de Acciones Formativas: los cuatro niveles. Barcelona: Epise: Gestión 2000. Marcelo, C. (2002). E-Learning. Teleformación. Diseño, desarrollo y evaluación de la formación a través de Internet. Barcelona: Gedisa 2000. Moreno, M. (2009). Avaluació de la Transferencia de la Formació Contínua per a Directius/ves de l’Administració Pública de Catalunya.: creació, aplicació i anàlisi d’un model d’avaluació de la transferencia. Tesi Doctoral, Departament de Pedagogia Sistemàtica i Social, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Newstrom, J. W. (1986). Leveraging management development through the management development through the management of transfer. Journal of Management Development, 5(5), pp. 33-45. Nota prévia. In Reimão, C. (Org.) (2001). A formação pedagógica dos professores do ensino superior. Lisboa: Edições Colibri. Pedrosa, S., Neto, J., Mendes, A.J., Pessoa, T., Marcelino, M.J. (2011). Concepção e desenvolvimento de cursos online – estratégias instrutivas utilizadas no ED.UC. In Proceedings of “ICEM-SIIE Joint Conference 2011, Old meets new – media in education" ICEM&SIIE'2011 Joint International Conference, 28 – 30 setembro de 2011 – Universidade de Aveiro, Aveiro (pp.146-155). Pineda, P.; Belvis, E.; Moreno, V.; Duran, M., Úcar, X. (2011). Evaluation of Training Effectiveness in the Spain Health Sector. En Journal of Workplace Learning, 23(5), pp. 315-330. Yamnill, S., e McLean, G. N. (2001). Theories supporting transfer of training. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(2), pp. 195-208.