This paper aims to present how an evaluation of a part of a curriculum, exploring both the formal curriculum level and the implemented curriculum level, gives complementary results and may help to frame further programme drafting. Based on part of a research aiming to evaluate the teaching of science in secondary education, it focuses especially on the quality of current programmes.

During a first year, the formal curriculum has been analysed (Demeuse et al., 2006), the prescribed (Jonnaert et al. 2009) and official (Crahay et al., 2006) curriculum. This was made on the basis of the model profiles curriculum proposed by Jonnaert, Ettayebi and Defise (2009). This model identifies six characteristics (degrees of uniqueness, of participation, of unanimity, of adaptability, of internal coherence and of external coherence) assessed on a scale ranging from level 0 to level 3. Using it allows to estimate the overall quality of the formal curriculum. The idea was to use this model to thoroughly explore the participation and contribution of stakeholders in curriculum, the goals of the programmes, their content, their usability and the terminology used.

The second year, the research focused on the characterization of the implemented curriculum (Demeuse et al., 2006) or officially taught curriculum (Crahay et al., 2006), on the teachers' needs and requirements, on their opinions and representations of what should be an ideal curriculum. To achieve this, their professional experience was explored, through an interview and a questionnaire, on a convenience sample of teachers. Several thematics were investigated : ownership of programs, tools and practices in implementing programmes, difficulties and expectations with respect to the formal curriculum and some thoughts on improvements and modifications that may be considered.

This paper will focus on the usability of the programmes. Results from the curriculum analysis carried and data collected from teachers were compared and have yielded proposals to improve the curriculum by defining a framework.

Crahay, M., Audigier, F., Dolz, J. (2006). Introduction: en quoi les curriculum peuvent-ils être objets d’investigation scientifique ?, in Audigier F., Crahay M., Dolz J. (Eds) Curriculum, enseignement et pilotage. Bruxelles : De Boeck Université. Demeuse, M. & Strauven, C. (2006). Développer un curriculum d’enseignement ou de formation, Bruxelles: De Boeck Université. Duroisin, N., Soetewey, S., Demeuse, M. (2012). Au carrefour du curriculum prescrit et du curriculum implanté : polémique et polysémie autour du terme de compétence en Communauté française. L’évaluation des compétences en milieu scolaire et en milieu professionnel -24e colloque international de l’ADMEE-Europe. Luxembourg. A paraitre. Glatthorn, A.A. (1987). Curriculum renewal. Alexandra: Association for supervision and curriculum development. Jonnaert, P., Ettayebi, M., Defise, R. (2009). Curriculum et compétences Un cadre opérationnel, Bruxelles: De Boeck Université. Mangez, E. (2008). Réformer les contenus d’enseignement. Paris: Presses universitaires de France. Soetewey, S., Duroisin, N., Demeuse, M. (2011). Le curriculum oublié. Analyse comparée des programmes de sciences en Belgique francophone. Revue Internationale d'Education - Sèvres 56. 123-134. Stufflebeam, D. L. (2002). The CIPP Model for evaluation, in D.L. Stufflebeam, G.F. Madaus, T. Kellaghan (Eds) Evaluation Models Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation. Netherlands: Springer. Tanner, D., Tanner, L. (1995). Curriculum Development : Theory into Practice (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.