In this proposal we address an educational action that involves research and development dedicated to the improvement of university teaching practice structured through intercontinental cooperation. To this end, we have recovered a brief history of some actions and research carried out between 1996 and 2014, based on participatory action-research perspective (Reason and Bradbury 2001). Next, we ask ourselves if the issues university teaching staff have developed in relation to their practice on the use of educational technologies have changed and focus on the curricula of the professional development of university teaching staff at UFMG / Brazil.

Context of Cooperation and its developments

In 1996, the UNESCO Chair of university teaching staff professional development in the form of distance learning was created at the Faculty of Education / Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais -UFMG/ Brazil, promoted by the UNITWIN / UNESCO Chair Program. Initially we counted on an intercontinental cooperation that allowed the permanence of Prof. Juana M. Sancho-Gil from de University of Barcelona, as visiting professor responsible for the implementation of the UNESCO Chair in collaborarion with Juliane Correa. According to  oir work plan, several courses and studies were carried out regarding problems in the field of Educational Technology understanding that: "what the teacher does every day of their professional life, to the face of the problem of having to teach a group of students, certain contents, during certain time, in order to reach some goals, it is knowledge in action, it is technology." ([author], 1994, p. 28).

From 1996 to 2008 the Chair enabled the association of groups, that until then had been developing isolated actions in the field of Distance Education, the use of Information and Communication Technologies  and development of teaching, and the implementation of research and extension projects with several areas of knowledge and partners of the University. This process led to the development of a competence that allowed the UFMG to assume the creation of the Board of Innovation and Teaching Methodologies, which became known as GIZ - Network for the Development of Higher Education Practices.

This Board / GIZ aimed to train postgraduate students to build innovative teaching teams, invest in the professional development of university teaching staff and promote pedagogical innovation in the University's 76 undergraduate courses. Integrated actions were implemented that provided tools and methodologies that could be appropriate and redefined in different contexts (e. g. portfolio, conceptual maps) and specific actions that required a development appropriate to the reality of different knowledge areas (e. g. paediatric, semiology).

The professional development process for UFMG’ teachers provided a contextualisation and qualification of the demands, a reflexion on the practice (Domingo & Ferré, 2015; Perrenound, 2002, Schön, 1983), a greater accountability of the teaching staff for their teaching choices and a re-enchantment by teaching in undergraduate education. A device was gradually consolidated (Alava, 2002, Palloff & Pratt, 2002), which allowed each advice provided in a department, collegiate course or work team to lead to a new flow of teachers for the next teaching career. In the same way, each course promoted a new flow of demand for new pedagogical advisory services. In addition, the proposed learning situations, such as: "Successful teaching practice" (Corrêa, 2017), seminars on teaching plans, contextualized workshops (Filatro, 2014) aimed at strengthening dialogue, coexistence (Bohm, 2005), sense of belonging, the identity and the professional appreciation of higher education teachers.

This research, development and transformation process was based on the principles of a participatory action research (PAR) approach, understood as “a participatory, democratic process, concerned with developing practical knowing in the pursuit of worthwhile human purposes [seeking] to bring together action and reflection, theory and practice, in participation with other” (Reason & Bradbury 2001, p. 1). Along all these years, different research methods have been implemented according the different actions developed by the participants in the process. As a starting point of the PAR process, interviews with key informants of the University and a survey allowed to explore the visions and conceptions of the UFMG personnel regarding Educational Technologies (Sancho & Corrêa, 1997). Here a negative view on the impact of Technology in the field of education was identified, which encouraged us to invest in the development of various professional development strategies in the UNESCO Chair. On the other hand, in the research on the State of knowledge - teaching practices in the UFMG graduation - 2006 to 2016 (Corrêa, Fortes de Carvalho, 2017). One hundred thirty one projects approved in 2008/2009 in the Special Program of Graduation were analysed according to the defined categories: Production of teaching materials; Curricular update studies; New teaching methodologies; Production of teaching materials with new teaching methodologies; Production of teaching materials with new teaching methodologies and curricular updating studies; Curricular updating studies with new teaching methodologies or teaching materials production. Most projects focused on the production of teaching materials added to the reduction of teaching materials with new teaching methodologies. Finally, a systematic documentation process allowed to collect the challenges presented by the teachers participating in the 2014 professional development course in relation to their teaching plans. The challenges revolved around: 1) the teaching practice; 2) the learning and teaching methodology; 3) the use of educational technologies as specific tools; 4) the role of technologies as mediation (methodologies, learning and relationship); 5) the distance learning and related technologies; 6) student learning; 7) the teacher / student ratio. Here, it was possible to observe a reduction of the focus on the technologies as tools and an increase of a valuation and interest by the teaching practice, the methodologies of teaching learning and even an approach of technologies like mediation. In this PAR process, still going on, the continuous collection of data allows for the permanent redefinition of research focuses and the decision-making regarding teaching staff needs.

In 1997 we are concerned about the impact of technologies on teaching practice and teachers work, in 2008/2009 we can identify an emphasis on the production of teaching materials and in 2014 we have a great shift from the interest of teachers to teaching practice and methodologies of teaching and learning. These data demonstrate a modification in the questions that the university teachers have elaborated in relation to their pedagogical practice regarding the use of the technologies. Throughout these years, but more recently, it is possible to perceive a great shift in the understanding of the relationship between education and technology expressed by university teaching staff in the form of problematizing university teaching. The evidence clearly is found in the data collected in a recent research on University teachers in continuing education and their curricula - GRAOS / FAE / UFMG (Corrêa, Albuquerque & Sancho, 2017). These findings connects with Hernandez & Sancho (2015, p. 154) argument that in the 21st century “Teaching and learning at the University do not only require finding the most appropriate planning of a sequence of contents in such a way that there is a correspondence between the input of information and its reproduction; nor do it require a way of understanding evaluation as the acquisition of certain competences that are reflected in paper and pencil activities planned by the teacher and carried out by the student”. Because in an over-informed world the most important aim of University seems to promote meaning and understanding (Sancho & Hernández, 2018). The initiative in which this proposal is based, little by little and to the extent that institutional conditions permit, have been fostering meaning and sense of belonging for UFMG teaching staff and students for more than 20 years

Alava, S. (2002). Ciberespaço e formações abertas: rumo a novas práticas educacionais? Porto Alegre: Artmed. Bohm, D. (2005). Diálogo – comunicação e redes de convivência. S.P.: Palas Athena. Corrêa, J. (2017) Formação de professores: o desafio de honrar e dar visibilidade às nossas práticas no ensino superior. Revista Camine: Caminhos da Educação, Franca, 9(2), 114-126. Corrêa, J., & Fortes de Carvalho, L. (2017). Relatório da Pesquisa Estado do conhecimento - práticas de ensino nos cursos de graduação de 2006 a 2016 - PROGRAD/UFMG. Belo Horizonte: Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Corrêa, J., Albuquerque, L. & Sancho, J. M. (2017). Relatório da Pesquisa Docentes Universitários em formação permanente e seus planos de estudos - GRAOS/ FAE/UFMG. Belo Horizonte: Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Domingo, J.C., & Ferré, N.P.L. (2014) Investigar la experiencia educativa. Barcelona: Ed. Morata. Filatro, A. (2014) Design instrucional contextualizado. São Paulo: Editora Senac São Paulo. Hernandez, F.; Sancho, J.M. (2015). Pensar la docencia universitaria desde las relaciones pedagógicas. REIRE. Revista d'Inovació i Recerca en Educació, 8(2), 153-158. Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2002) Construindo comunidades de aprendizagem no ciberespaço. Porto Alegre: Artmed. Perrenound, P. (2002). A prática reflexiva no ofício do professor. Porto Alegre: Artmed. Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001). Handbook of action research. Participative inquiry and practice. London: Sage. Sancho, J. M. (1994). La tecnología: un modo de transformar el mundo cargado de ambivalencia. In J. M. Sancho (Ed.). Para una Tecnología Educativa (pp. 13-38). Barcelona: Horsori. Sancho, J. M., & Corrêa, J. (1997). Las tecnologías en el âmbito de la educación: visiones y concepciones. Belo Horizonte: CátedraUnesco/ Anais do Seminário de Pesquisa Faculdade de Educação/ UFMG. Sancho, J. M. & Hernández, F. (2018). La profesión docente en la era del exceso de información y la falta de sentido. RED. Revista de Educación a Distancia, 56, Artíc. 4, 31-01-2018. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/red/56/4 Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith