To Örebro University

Decisions schools make about teaching content fundamentally shape students' educational experience and their later life. These decisions often take a particular shape for students with intellectual disabilities. Although such decisions for this group are a prime concern in the governing and practice of education, they have gained little attention in research. Research that does investigate teaching content for students with intellectual disabilities often makes a distinction between Life Functional skills (LFS) and Academic Content (AC) and treats these as being quite separate. The study at hand explores the nuances of and relationship between the two through a scoping review, and contributes knowledge on didactical aspects and the how and why of teaching content as depicted in research. Results indicate that research on teaching content entails a complex process of valuing the content in which AC and LFS often overlap. Results also illustrate that students and teachers are absent from the research on teaching content and not included as active participants; researchers' methods often take precedence over teachers' and students' valuing of teaching content or methods.

This article contributes to a didactical understanding of teachers’ decision-making regarding teaching content for students with intellectual disabilities (ID). Specifically, the study investigates teachers’ justifications for their content choices and the reasoning involved. The empirical material comprises individual interviews and classroom observations of three teachers working within the same school unit. The analysis draws on, and contributes to, the development of didactical theory, focusing on how teachers make content-related decisions. Three core justifications emerged: independence, participation, and communication. Didactic theory served as an analytical tool for deepening the understanding of the underlying reasoning behind these choices. This revealed the significant professional autonomy teachers exercise in navigating complex decisions about teaching content, grounded in the specific needs and contexts of their students. Accordingly, the study advances didactical theory tailored to the field of education for students with ID – an area where such frameworks are currently limited. By offering a didactical perspective on teaching content, this research complements previous studies, providing insights for both research and practice aimed at analysing and reflecting on teaching for students with ID.