By the Editorial EdTech Desk
Published: Special Report on Higher Education Technology & Instructional Design
Executive Overview
In the landscape of higher education and instructional technology, institutional initiatives frequently rise or fall on a single, often-overlooked variable: user ownership. While administrators often focus heavily on rollout strategies, software feature sets, and pedagogical frameworks, a deeper psychological mechanism dictates long-term success. People care significantly more about outcomes they have helped shape, even when their individual contributions are relatively small.
This phenomenon—aptly dubbed "The Shake and Bake Principle"—draws its name from the nostalgic 1980s and 1990s television commercials where a child eagerly assists a parent in shaking chicken in a seasoned coating bag before proudly declaring, "Shake ’n Bake… and I helped!" The humor of the ad relied on the obvious truth that the child did not actually cook the meal. Yet, that minor act of participation fundamentally altered their relationship with the final result. Dinner was no longer just something served to them; it was something they helped create.
In the context of digital learning, this psychological trigger manifests in course design meetings, faculty development programs, Learning Management System (LMS) transitions, committee work, and student projects. When faculty members and students can trace their fingerprints to a final outcome, engagement transforms from passive compliance into active investment. Conversely, when stakeholders are sidelined during formative stages, even the most technologically sophisticated implementations frequently encounter friction, skepticism, or outright resistance.
This report examines how the Shake and Bake Principle operates across modern higher education. Drawing on real-world implementations in faculty video production, LMS navigation structures, student-led media projects, and institutional software procurement, we explore the delicate balance between structural guidance and creative flexibility. Furthermore, this investigation addresses the critical distinction between authentic collaboration and "participation theater"—the superficial collection of feedback after decisions have already been finalized. Ultimately, the evidence suggests that fostering deep institutional engagement does not require surrendering professional expertise; rather, it requires designing processes where stakeholders can genuinely recognize their influence.
Detailed Chronology: A Case Study in Institutional Misstep and Recovery
To understand the practical mechanics of the Shake and Bake Principle, one must examine how the absence—and subsequent restoration—of authentic participation plays out during major institutional rollouts. A prime example occurred during the early tenure of Brad Denison, Director of Educational Technology Services at the College of the Mainland.
Phase 1: The Operational Imperative and the Blind Spot
Early in his administrative career, Denison and institutional leadership faced an immediate operational challenge: an emerging demand from faculty for secure online testing environments. With multiple faculty members expressing anxiety over academic integrity in remote testing, leadership felt compelled to act swiftly to establish reassurance.
Operating under intense pressure to solve a logistical problem efficiently, leadership leaned into existing vendor relationships. Because the institution already utilized various tools from Respondus, selecting Respondus LockDown Browser and Monitor appeared to be a logical, low-friction choice. From a purely administrative standpoint, the decision checked all the boxes: it was compatible, vendor-supported, and addressed the immediate operational brief.
Phase 2: Immediate Faculty Pushback
The rollout, however, hit immediate turbulence. Faculty pushback materialized almost instantaneously. Instructors raised concerns regarding student privacy, the psychological impact of automated proctoring on learners, and the top-down nature of the software’s deployment.
In hindsight, the resistance was entirely predictable. Leadership had solved an operational problem without cultivating any sense of faculty ownership in the process. Instructors were expected to adopt a surveillance-adjacent tool into their pedagogical spaces without ever having been invited into the evaluative dialogue. They did not want feedback opportunities after the decision had effectively been made; they wanted a voice before the implementation strategy was drafted.
Phase 3: Course Correction and the Faculty Evaluation Committee
Recognizing that the initial rollout strategy had alienated the very stakeholders required to make the tool successful, leadership reversed course. Rather than doubling down on administrative authority, they paused the mandatory enforcement and established a formal faculty evaluation committee.
The administration initiated a comprehensive, transparent review process. Faculty members were invited to test competing proctoring solutions, examine data privacy frameworks, discuss pedagogical trade-offs, and co-design the implementation guidelines.
Interestingly, after rigorous testing and open deliberation, the committee ultimately landed on the exact same platform: Respondus LockDown Browser and Monitor.
Phase 4: The Paradigm Shift in Tone and Adoption
Despite arriving at the same technological destination, the institutional reality was radically different. Because faculty had driven the evaluation process, reviewed the alternatives, and participated directly in implementation planning, the tone across campus shifted entirely.
The software was no longer viewed as an administrative mandate forced upon academic departments; it was viewed as a faculty-vetted solution designed to address a shared classroom concern. This case study underscores a vital higher education lesson: stakeholders rarely demand absolute veto power over every institutional choice, but they do require tangible evidence that their participation mattered.
Supporting Context & Metrics: Where Participation Becomes Ownership
Beyond high-stakes software procurement, the Shake and Bake Principle governs daily interactions across instructional design, faculty development, and student-facing coursework.
Faculty Video Initiatives and Conversational Production
When educational technology teams launch faculty-facing multimedia projects—such as short introduction videos for online courses—instructors frequently approach the studio with apprehension. Concerns regarding time commitments and personal on-camera presence are common.
Rather than handing educators a rigid teleprompter script, successful media teams utilize a conversational process. By blending pedagogical philosophy questions with lighter, unscripted prompts, designers help faculty relax while capturing authentic footage. Crucially, the production team handles the heavy lifting of video editing.
Once instructors view the final product, the psychological shift is palpable. Because the video reflects their genuine voice rather than a sterile corporate script, faculty experience immense pride. Data from multimedia adoption tracking consistently show that instructors who participate in authentic video creation are significantly more likely to share their media across departments, mentor reluctant peers, and reimagine their digital presence. The breakthrough is not the camera resolution or the editing software; it is the deep sense of personal ownership.
Balancing Structure and Identity in LMS Shells
In the realm of LMS course shells and faculty development templates, instructional designers often grapple with the tension between institutional standardization and individual expression. Maintaining searchable naming conventions (e.g., standardized prefixes like DEV-ENGL-1301 or DEV-CHEM-1411) is vital for institutional organization, data tracking, and help-desk workflows.
However, over-standardization can stifle engagement. When designers loosen control over the secondary portions of course shell naming conventions—allowing faculty to imprint personal identifiers or section branding while preserving core operational structures—engagement metrics rise. Faculty become noticeably more invested in their development shells because they retain room for identity and personalization. It serves as a reminder to instructional designers that not every standard needs to act as a creative constraint.
Student-Centric Pedagogies: Creative Freedom Within Scaffolding
The principle applies equally to learners. In modern digital communication and media courses, requiring students to build public-facing assets (such as YouTube channels) as part of their coursework yields profound engagement results.
While assignments require strict structural scaffolding, rubrics, and milestone deadlines, students retain autonomy over channel identity, niche selection, and creative direction. Some learners construct academic media-review hubs, while others design gaming analytics, technical tutorial brands, music commentary spaces, or mini-documentaries. The academic structure ensures accountability and learning outcomes, but the creative freedom allows students to forge a deep, intrinsic connection to the work.
Official Statements and Expert Perspectives
To further contextualize the role of collaboration in educational technology, administrative leaders and instructional designers emphasize the necessity of dismantling traditional silos between technical experts and academic practitioners.
"One of the easiest mistakes instructional designers and educational technology teams can make is unintentionally becoming ‘the expert in the room’ in ways that diminish faculty ownership," notes Brad Denison, Director of Educational Technology Services at the College of the Mainland. "We know instructional design, learning theory, and educational software. But faculty know their disciplines, their students, and their classroom realities. Good collaboration depends entirely on treating both forms of expertise as equally valuable."
Denison highlights a simple conversational shift that transforms instructional design meetings: asking faculty, "How would you prefer to learn this?"
"That single question changes the tone immediately," Denison explains. "It shifts the interaction from top-down implementation to genuine collaboration. In digital learning, we often talk about engagement as if it begins after course deployment. In reality, engagement begins much earlier—when people feel invited into the process instead of managed through it."
Educational development researchers echo these sentiments, warning against "participation theater"—the institutional habit of distributing post-decision surveys or assembling advisory committees after software contracts have already been signed. Higher education practitioners are acutely perceptive; they quickly recognize when consultation is merely performative optics designed to rubber-stamp pre-determined administration goals. True institutional leadership requires balancing decisive executive action with transparent, meaningful stakeholder integration.
Future Outlook: The Next Decade of EdTech Collaboration
As artificial intelligence, adaptive learning platforms, and complex digital ecosystems transform higher education over the next ten years, the relevance of the Shake and Bake Principle will only intensify.
1. Navigating AI Integration Through Co-Creation
The rapid emergence of Generative AI tools in higher education presents a classic test for institutional governance. Universities rushing to implement campus-wide AI policies or automated grading assistants risk severe pushback if faculty and students are treated as passive end-users. Future-proof EdTech strategies will require AI task forces composed of cross-functional stakeholders who co-create guardrails, ethical frameworks, and pedagogical integration models from day one.
2. Moving Beyond "Participation Theater" in LMS Migrations
As institutions continually evaluate and transition between major digital learning platforms, technology leaders must abandon superficial town halls. Successful migrations in the coming decade will rely on early adopter networks, iterative pilot programs, and transparent feedback loops where user data directly influences system architecture.
3. Cultivating Institutional Resilience
Ultimately, higher education institutions face mounting pressures regarding student retention, fiscal efficiency, and technological adaptation. Navigating these challenges requires cultural resilience that cannot be mandated via policy memos. By embedding the Shake and Bake Principle into institutional DNA—ensuring that faculty, staff, and students can consistently recognize their influence in shaping the digital campus—institutions can bridge the historical divide between administrative compliance and passionate, organic engagement.
As educational technologists look toward the future, the guiding mantra remains clear: sustainable innovation is rarely achieved through perfect rollout strategies alone. Often, the shortest path to genuine engagement is simply designing processes that allow every stakeholder to look at the finished product and honestly say: "And I helped."
About the Contributor
Brad Denison serves as the Director of Educational Technology Services at the College of the Mainland, where he oversees distance education operations, advanced classroom technology integrations, and faculty-focused EdTech professional development. His professional philosophy centers on demystifying educational technology, making digital learning practical and engaging, and fostering environments where academic practitioners feel empowered as co-creators of their instructional futures.
