“We view students as experts on their own lived experiences with inclusive course environments” (Addy et al., 2024).
In earlier blog posts, I’ve shared my experiences using PORTL (Thank You for Playing PORTL! and From Prep to Play: My first semester playing PORTL). This fall, I’m using it again, and just when I thought I had enough practice to feel confident, I found myself feeling like a beginner all over. Instead of resisting that feeling, I decided to embrace it. It reminded me what it’s like to be both a teacher and a learner for the first time. A good thing to experience and and advice from mentors, to put yourself in new learning experiences. With that in mind, I set aside the urge to overprepare or be overly rigid, and leaned into an approach centered on learning together, staying flexible, and having fun.
This blog is about two observations, written as field notes, from recent sessions using the shaping game and PORTL. A lot happened in each class, but these two moments stood out. Interestingly, they weren’t part of the plan. They emerged naturally and, in doing so, illustrated the reciprocal, fluid nature of teaching and learning. They also reminded me how powerful incidental teaching can be, that is, using naturally occurring moments (“incidents”) to teach behavior principles in meaningful, context-rich ways (Alai-Rosales et al., 2017).
What I hope to convey here is this: incidental teaching and learning in higher education can help build community through shared participation and a sense of belonging. It encourages interaction, cooperation, and connection among students. And yes, there may be moments of frustration along the way, but more often than not, joy and discovery rise to the surface.
Observation #1 – During the Shaping Game
I volunteered to be the learner and asked for a student to take on the role of teacher. We agreed that the auditory cue from a clicker would serve as the reinforcer, briefly reviewed the importance of immediacy, and clarified that only the teacher should deliver the reinforcer (see Pryor, 1984 for more on this game, also called the training game). Before stepping out so students could choose a target behavior for me to learn, I gave two parting instructions: “Choose something simple and be nice!”
A student came to get me from the hallway, and once I re-entered the classroom, I did what any good learner would do: I moved around and varied my behavior. Still no clicks. I kept trying, noticing a few giggles in the room. Finally, I heard a click, so I repeated the most recent thing I had done, but soon felt stuck. I saw the student teacher looking confused, and students around the student teacher whispering and strategizing. Without any announcement, another student stepped in and began clicking. I went with it.
The clicking became more frequent as I moved toward my desk. “Okay,” I thought, “it must have something to do with what I do here.” Suddenly, the whole class erupted with a collective “warm!” It startled me—in a good way—and encouraged me to keep searching. A few more group “warm” cues later, I picked up my water bottle and took a sip. The class cheered.
It was fun. I was truly having the time of my life. During the debrief, we discussed what happened, how it felt, how the group made decisions about reinforcement, and what could have gone differently. We talked about collective problem solving, and I shared how the students’ own behavior shifted throughout the activity—how they communicated, negotiated, and adapted. Many students stayed after class to keep talking about their experience and how much they enjoyed it.
As I reflect on the moment, I’m struck by how flexibility can foster genuine collective engagement. If I had insisted that only the designated teacher could deliver the reinforcer, none of this would have unfolded. And yet, we still practiced shaping, examined reinforcement effects, and learned together. I was especially delighted and impressed by the spontaneous “warm” chorus and the way students naturally moved away from an individualized approach into a shared, cooperative one. What began as a simple shaping game became an inclusive, community-building experience that seemed to strengthen students’ sense of connection and belonging.
Observation #2 – During PORTL
In this session, eight pairs of students were set up to play PORTL (Behavior Explorer, Hunter & Rosales-Ruiz), along with one group of three. This observation focuses on that trio, who without explicit instruction chose to structure themselves with one teacher and two learners. I had only provided instructions for pairs, so their solution emerged entirely from their own negotiation while I moved around the room helping groups set up.
Once the activity began, I paused at their table and watched. The teacher arranged objects while the two learners whispered to each other (even covering their mouths) and took turns interacting with the materials and collecting tokens. Although PORTL is designed for two people, this group—again—broke away from the individualistic structure and created a cooperative one that worked for them.
When I spoke with them afterward, they explained that they unanimously agreed they didn’t want one person to be left out as an observer. They wanted everyone to have an active role. Their willingness to reorganize the activity, ensure participation, and include their peer demonstrated problem-solving, flexibility, and collaboration—qualities at the heart of meaningful learning.
Closing Reflections
During these two moments, the one during the shaping game and the other during PORTL, students stepped outside the structure I provided and reorganized the activity in ways that prioritized cooperation, inclusion, and shared participation. Their choices weren’t prompted by instructions; they emerged as students interacted, problem-solved, and responded to one another.
What stood out most to me, was how quickly the classroom shifted from individual roles to collective engagement. Students negotiated with one another, adapted when challenges arose, and ensured that no one was left out. These spontaneous adjustments didn’t detract from the learning objectives—if anything, they enriched them. The behavior principles we were practicing became embedded in social interaction, community building, and mutual support.
These experiences reaffirm for me that incidental teaching isn’t just about taking advantage of teachable moments; it’s also about creating conditions where students feel comfortable exploring, collaborating, and shaping the learning process together. When we allow space for flexibility, creativity, and even a little unpredictability, the classroom becomes a place where belonging can grow.
Fun, connection, curiosity, and joy can all coexist with rigorous learning. Sometimes, the best lessons emerge not from what we planned, but from what students create together when given the freedom to engage collectively.
References
Addy, T. M., Dube, D., & Mitchell, K. A. (2024). Enhancing inclusive instruction. Student perspectives and practical approaches for advancing equity in higher education. Routledge.
Alai-Rosales, S., Toussaint, K.A., McGee, G.G. (2017). Incidental teaching: Happy progress. In: Leaf, J. (eds) Handbook of Social Skills and Autism Spectrum Disorder. Autism and Child Psychopathology Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62995-7_11
Behavior Explorer https://behaviorexplorer.com/portl/
Elcoro, M. (2025, May 21). From prep to play: My first semester playing PORTL. Behavior Analysis Blogs: Behavioral Education.
Elcoro, M. (2025, January 29). Thank You for Playing PORTL! Behavior Analysis Blogs. Behavioral Education. Association for Behavior Analysis International.
Hunter, M. E., & Rosales-Ruiz, J. (2023). The PORTL Laboratory. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 46(2), 355–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-023-00369-y
Pryor, K. (1984). Don’t shoot the dog! The new art of teaching and training. Revised Edition. Gardners VI Books.