Our sessions hosted 7 presentations and 9 participants (some of them attended only partially). Three quite different cultural areas were represented, i.e. Mexico, India and Europe.

1. A summarising concept: “curriculum design processes”
A possible key concept able to combine all the presentations and the interwoven discussions lies in the concept of Curriculum Design and Development. Curriculum Design / Development can be promoted on the basis of several different rationales: e.g. it can be promoted in order to:

1. include innovation in teaching/learning methodologies and tools (for instance interdisciplinarity, multimedia tools, paradigm shifts, etc.);
2. extend, enhance and re-organise the curriculum itself because of new subject developments;
3. increase student motivation and course attractiveness (a stimulating presentation about students’ motivations came from PT_E7, Obdržálek, Prague)
4. implement political developments and decisions.

In all these cases the changes / developments in the curriculum occur through complex processes, with several interacting actors, and the implementation / assessment / refinement of such processes may require many years. This is the case of the three following processes, which were illustrated during the Workshop:

1. the process involving a limited number of teachers (about 40 in number), from different Departments/Faculties, but teaching similar subjects (Experimental Method) at a Mexican university; the teachers engaged in an interdisciplinary effort to improve their overall didactic offer: then each such unit was always offered by a teachers’ pair (see PT_E1, Ayala Velázquez, Mexico City, who also includes a precious set of recommendations for the use of the cooperating teachers);
2. the process involving the teachers from several Colleges of the University of Delhi, all of them teaching in a Physics degree course and committed to a curriculum reform, meant to integrate several innovative ideas. The model proposed is a three-step process, to be repeated cyclically on the basis of previous feedback (see PT_E5, Jolly, Delhi).
3. The European-wide Pilot Project named “Tuning Educational Structures in Europe”, a true process in itself. It involves 101 European universities, as an answer to the challenge represented by the much wider and complex process, which goes under the name of Bologna Process (as examples of a single institution adaptation to the Bologna Process, see WS_E1, Honsell et al, Udine; WS_E4, Filip Sanda et al, Oradea). The Tuning process grouped the 101 participating institutions into 7 subject groups (Physics among them) with the aim of finding common reference points, to be used in order to design curricula for mainstream degree courses fully respondent to the needs of the forth-coming EHEA – European Higher Education Area. These latter common reference points were essentially identified in a set of generic and subject specific competences, conveniently supported by a common system of academic credits, i.e. ECTS credits (see PT_E3, Donà dalle Rose, Padova). This shift in paradigm, from a content oriented curriculum design to a learning outcomes oriented curricullar planning (from input to output), is also illustrated from a pedagogical point of view in WS_E2, D. Opre, Cluj.

2. The involvement of teachers/professors

2.1 General aspects
Given the processes, and their need and urgency in the present historical context, the next important point relates to the ways through which the University teachers/professors may be profitably involved in the generalisation of these same processes, using the findings of the pilot phases and in the respect of a steadily growing concern for the academic quality. We suggest here three possible concrete ways, i.e. the participation in (see details below):

1. “General” Workshops;
2. “Specialised” Workshops and/or Initiatives;
3. Initiatives specifically aimed at improving the quality of individual teaching.

Such a participation may / may not be linked to a general assessment framework dealing with the professors teaching tasks and including also assessment by the students and by experts / peers. Within such a framework, it should be possible to take concrete actions in order to avoid misbehaviour. As possible examples in this direction we remind here the choice of many German länder, according to which part of the professor salary is modulated on the basis of the results of the assessment; incentives to good teachers are also foreseen by a recent Italian law (see a case of good practice at the University of Udine, WS_E1, Honsell et al.). Moreover, as a possible additional suggestion, we envisage here the achievement of a minimum number of attendance points per year, to be gained by the university teachers through workshop attendance or through participation in other training initiatives, as a requirement needed to confirm their own teaching position. In this very context, see also below at point 2.4 the reference to a recent innovative Bavarian law.

2.2 General Workshops
Their main aims are:

• Bringing awareness among the professors about the content gaps and pedagogical gaps, which have to be filled in; about the institutional changes to be accomplished; about the convergence actions (e.g. the building of the EHEA) to be carried out, etc.
• Share a common terminology,
• Identifying cases of good practice [in the context of the present Workshop some such cases can be found in PT_E1, Ayala Velázquez (a scheme for fruitful workshops); in GT6, Planinšic, Ljubljana (ways of developing certain generic skills in lab course units); moreover other concrete examples of specific competences developments can be found in WS_E3, Calzadilla et al, Havana ; see also below at “Other related issues”];
• Thinking solutions and finding practical ways in order to implement in real life the new ideas, models, methods;
• Devising / planning ways in order to monitor and evaluate the need for changes and the effects of the changes, once they are implemented. In the former respect (identification of the needs) a possible useful investigative methodology was proposed in PT_E8, A. Opre, Cluj, with the aim of identifying difficulties in the physics teacher initial training.

2.3 Specialised Workshops
Quite generally, these workshops are meant to provide specific teaching competences to the teaching staff members. They usually need the organisational help of a qualified Support Group or experts. For the sake of exemplification we list here possible exercises to be held in these workshops:

• planning and updating the didactic offer in a given unit relying on an interdisciplinary environment (see again PT_E1, Ayala Velázquez);
• writing the learning outcomes and the corresponding assessment criteria for the units of a given degree course or even for the whole degree course programme (see again the Tuning experience in PT_E3, Donà dalle Rose);
• developing given competences in the students through concrete steps in appropriate unit(s), see again Tuning and GT6, Planinšic and PT_E2, De Angelis, Udine;
• optimising the learning environment (see GT2, Sokoloff, Oregon, about active learning environments; see also and again PT_E5, Jolly, who discusses problem solving situations, where the teacher does not yet know the answer);
• applying at the level of a university degree course the method of “classroom research” in order to identify the weak points (see PT_E5, Jolly);
  unit(s)
• etc.

2.4 Initiatives for improving individual teaching capabilities
During the workshop it was quoted and appreciated an interesting program at the Technical University of Munich (see PT_E9, Ucke, Munich). The program includes non-compulsory seminars, workshops and lecture coaching for assistants and professors. A group of experienced university teachers together with external professional trainers offer rhetorical courses and explain how to define the goals of university course units, how to use teaching tools in university lectures, how to prepare oral and written examinations. As a matter of fact, it must be reminded that a new Bavarian law concerning universities explicitly foresees for each forthcoming new professor the assessment of her/his “pedagogical qualification”, the assessment being based on students’ and experts/peers’ reports.

3 Odds and conclusions
As a concrete example of developing specific teaching competences within a degree course out of the university mainstream (i.e. in this very case a course devoted to continuing education), PT_E6, Longhetto et al, presented a pilot initiative at the university of Udine, concerning in-service training of school teachers. This postgraduate 60 ECTS credits course is organised in cooperation with other University initiatives (specialisation degree courses, Centre for Research in Didactics, etc.), relying on a consolidated regional network of primary and secondary schools, within an ongoing dialogue with teacher associations, regional educational institutes and agencies.
A somewhat similar initiative, at a departmental level and in a completely different environment, is described in WS_E5, Sykja, Tirana.

Finally we cannot here ignore the message that G. Tibell, Uppsala, gave us in RT1, when he described the suspicious and negative reactions of the professors at his university on the occasion of the presentation of a list of 24 recommendations, prepared by distinguished experts, concerning the improvement of university teaching and the training of university teachers. As a conclusion – then – we dare to say that this Workshop brought new awareness about how to follow a difficult route: “per aspera ad astra”, through difficulties up to the stars, we hope!. We are only at the beginning of a long “process”.