Gap analysis: transition age youth educational resources for high school graduation and college and career readiness

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Summarize

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
Running head: TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES

GAP ANALYSIS: TRANSITION AGE YOUTH EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES FOR HIGH
SCHOOL GRADUATION AND COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS

by

Kenneth Martin Hill

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2021

Copyright 2021 Kenneth Martin Hill

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
ii
Dedication
For my father, Ronald Bayne Hill, my mother, Carol Laverne Hill, my wife, Denise Michelle
Hill, and my daughter, Kate MacKenzie Hill: We reach backward to our parents and forward to
our children, and through their children to a future we will never see, but about which we need to
care (Carl Jung, as cited in Myers, 2004).

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
iii
Acknowledgements
To my USC “team,” Dr. Michael McDowell and Dr. Lisa Jo Keefer, thank you for the academic
and spiritual support. To Denise Michelle Hill, I am humbled by the depth of your selfless
charity and emotional vulnerability. Lastly, thank you to my Dissertation Committee: Chair, Dr.
Lawrence O. Picus, for your expertise, guidance, and accessibility; Dr. Patricia Tobey for your
sincere interest and support in my dissertation topic; and Dr. Peter M. Getz for your lengthy
friendship and mentorship.

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ x
Abstract .................................................................................................................................. xi
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM OF PRACTICE ...................... 1
Organizational Context and Mission ......................................................................... 5
Organization Performance Status .............................................................................. 7
Related Gap Analysis Literature ................................................................................ 8
Importance of Addressing the Problem ..................................................................... 11
Organizational Performance Goal .............................................................................. 12
Stakeholders: Identification and Performance Goals ................................................. 13
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions ........................................................... 15
Conceptual and Methodological Framework ............................................................. 17
Organization of the Dissertation ................................................................................ 18

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................ 19
TAY Autonomy ......................................................................................................... 20
Personalized Learning ................................................................................................ 24
Definitions of Personalized Learning ............................................................ 24
Personalized Learning Stakeholders .............................................................. 26
DCS .................................................................................................... 26
TAY Learner ...................................................................................... 26
Organizational Supervisory Roles ..................................................... 27
Personalized Learning Implications ............................................................... 27
Professional Development/Professional Learning ..................................................... 28
Professional Learning Engagement ............................................................... 29
Professional Learning Differentiation ............................................................ 31
Professional Learning Choice ........................................................................ 32
Professional Learning Self-Efficacy .............................................................. 34
Professional Learning Goals .......................................................................... 34
Knowledge Factors .................................................................................................... 36
Declarative Knowledge .................................................................................. 38
Procedural Knowledge ................................................................................... 40
Metacognitive Knowledge ............................................................................. 42
Cognitive Load Theory ...................................................................... 43
Motivation Factors ..................................................................................................... 46
Choice, Persistence, and Mental Effort .......................................................... 46
Value Orientations ......................................................................................... 47
Attributions and Contingencies...................................................................... 51
Organization Factors .................................................................................................. 56
Organizational Culture ................................................................................... 56
Organizational Protocol ................................................................................. 57
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
v
Organizational Collaboration ......................................................................... 58
Organizational Stakeholders .......................................................................... 59
Administrative Stakeholder ............................................................... 60
DCS Stakeholder ................................................................................ 61
Organizational Accountability .................................................................................. 64
Director and Provider .................................................................................. 65
Peer-Based Benchmarking .......................................................................... 69
Improving Accountability ........................................................................... 70
Summary ................................................................................................................................ 76

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY .............................................................................. 80
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions ........................................................... 80
Conceptual and Methodological Framework ............................................................. 81
Assessment of Performance Influences ..................................................................... 89
Knowledge Assessment ................................................................................. 89
Motivation Assessment .................................................................................. 92
Organization/Culture Context Assessment .................................................... 94
Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection ...................................................... 96
Sampling ........................................................................................................ 96
Recruitment .................................................................................................... 100
Data Collection .......................................................................................................... 101
Focus Groups ................................................................................................. 101
Focus group protocol ......................................................................... 101
Data collection ................................................................................... 102
Interviews ....................................................................................................... 102
Interview protocol .............................................................................. 102
Data Collection .................................................................................. 103
Document Analysis ........................................................................................ 104
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................. 104
Trustworthiness .............................................................................................. 104
Role of Researcher ..................................................................................................... 105
Limitations and Delimitations .................................................................................... 106
Limitations ..................................................................................................... 106
Delimitations .................................................................................................. 107

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS ................................................................. 111
Participants ................................................................................................................. 117
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................. 120
Results and Findings .................................................................................................. 121
Knowledge and Skills: Assumed and Validated Causes ................................ 122
STRTP KMO Context........................................................................ 122
Declarative Knowledge Factors ......................................................... 123
Declarative Content and Cognitive Science Strategies. ....... 125
Cross-disciplinary Application. ........................................... 127
Stakeholder and TAY Alignment Accountability................ 129
Procedural Knowledge Factors .......................................................... 131
Evaluation and Feedback ..................................................... 131
Declarative to Procedural Content Value ............................ 133
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
vi
Metacognitive Knowledge Factors .................................................... 134
Metacognitive Reflection and Goal Orientations ................ 135
Motivational Factors: Assumed and Validated Causes ................................. 140
DCS Stakeholder Ownership ................................................ 148
DCS Stakeholder Identified Learning Modalities................. 150
DCS Stakeholder Collaboration ............................................ 152
Organizational Factors: Assumed and Validated Causes .............................. 155
Document Analysis: Personal and Professional Learning .... 155
Organizational Motivation Measures .................................... 158
Organizational Climate and Culture ..................................... 159
Organizational Collaboration ................................................ 167
Organizational Engagement .................................................. 169
Summary of KMO Gaps ............................................................................................ 172
Knowledge and Skills .................................................................................... 173
Declarative Knowledge ...................................................................... 173
Declarative Content and Cognitive Science Strategies ......... 173
Cross-disciplinary Application ............................................ 173
Declarative DCS and TAY Alignment Accountability ........ 174
Procedural .......................................................................................... 174
Evaluation and Feedback ...................................................... 174
Metacognitive .................................................................................... 175
Metacognitive Reflection and Goal Orientations ................. 175
Motivation ...................................................................................................... 176
DCS Stakeholder Ownership ................................................ 177
DCS Stakeholder Identified Learning Modalities................. 177
DCS Stakeholder Collaboration ............................................ 177
Organization ................................................................................................... 177
Document Analysis: Personal and Professional Learning .... 177
Organizational Motivation Measures .................................... 178
Organizational Climate and Culture ..................................... 178
Organizational Collaboration ................................................ 178
Organizational Engagement .................................................. 179
Summary .................................................................................................................... 179

CHAPTER FIVE: SOLUTIONS, IMPLEMENTATIONS, AND EVALUATIONS ........... 188
KMO Solutions Overview ......................................................................................... 188
Evaluation and Feedback ............................................................................... 188
Defining Goals and Fidelity of Resources ..................................................... 190
Anthropological Investigations and Microaggressions .................................. 191
Differentiated Choice, Persistence, and Mental Effort .................................. 192
Professional Networking ................................................................................ 192
Network Selection Attributes ......................................................................... 193
Proposed Solutions..................................................................................................... 195
Validated Influences .................................................................................................. 197
Organizational KMO Solutions ................................................................................. 201
Organizational Setting ................................................................................... 203
Collaborative Solutions .................................................................................. 207
Assessment Tools .......................................................................................... 209
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
vii
Feedback and Reflection ................................................................................ 216
Quasi-administrative Leadership ................................................................... 218
Implementation Solutions .............................................................................. 223
Organizational Integrated Resources ............................................................. 225
Expert to Novice Ratio ................................................................................... 226
Collaborative Coaching ................................................................................. 226
Micro-credential Integration .......................................................................... 228
Collegiality ..................................................................................................... 229
Collaborative Contracts ................................................................................. 230
Instrumentation and Methodology ................................................................. 231
Data-driven Pedagogy .................................................................................... 232
Goal Targeting ............................................................................................... 233
Culture/Climate Efficacy ............................................................................... 234
Reciprocal Collaboration ............................................................................... 235
Evaluation Plan .......................................................................................................... 235
Level 4: Results, Leading Indicators, and Desired Outcomes ....................... 238
Level 3: Behaviors ......................................................................................... 238
Required Drivers ............................................................................................ 239
Organizational Proctoring .............................................................................. 243
Level 2: Learning Goals................................................................................. 243
Level 1: Reaction ........................................................................................... 243
Evaluation Assessments ................................................................................. 244
Instrument Reliability Table .......................................................................... 247
NWKM Application....................................................................................... 250
Stakeholder Goals .......................................................................................... 250
Recommendations for Further Inquiry....................................................................... 251
Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 252
References .............................................................................................................................. 255
Appendices ............................................................................................................................. 278
Appendix A: Recruitment Letter—Focus Group Protocol ........................................ 278
Appendix B: Information Sheet for Exempt Research—Focus Group Recruitment . 279
Appendix C: Facilitator Focus Group Protocol ......................................................... 281
Appendix D: Facilitator Focus Group Protocol Guide .............................................. 282
Appendix E: Interview Letter—Administrative Protocol .......................................... 285
Appendix F: Information Sheet for Exempt Research—Interview Recruitment ....... 286
Appendix G: Facilitator Interview Protocol Guide .................................................... 288
Appendix H: NSRF Protocols .................................................................................... 290
Appendix H-2: NSRF Data Analysis Protocol .......................................................... 291
Appendix H-3: NSRF Considering Evidence Protocol ............................................. 292
Appendix H-4: NSRF Change in Practice Protocol ................................................... 293
Appendix H-5: NSRF ATLAS Looking at Data....................................................... 294
Appendix H-6: NSRF Connect to Work and Share Feedback Protocol .................... 295
Appendix I: Standards for Professional Learning ...................................................... 296
Appendix J: MCESA Inquiry-Based Teaching Strategies ......................................... 297
Appendix K: Guskey’s Five Level Categorical Questions ........................................ 298
Appendix L: Micro-Credential Orientation Evaluation Instrument ........................... 299
Appendix M1-25: IRB and Dissertation Presentation ............................................... 300
Appendix N: Definition of Terms .............................................................................. 325
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
viii
List of Tables
Table 1. Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals....... 15
Table 2. Summary of DCS Stakeholder Assumptions ....................................................... 78
Table 3. Kirkpatrick Four Levels of Evaluations ............................................................... 85
Table 1. Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals....... 87
Table 4. Summary of DCS Stakeholder for Validating Assumed Influences .................... 97
Table 5. Purposive Focus Group Sample: Convenience Setting ....................................... 100
Table 6. Summary of DCS Assumed Causes and Validation Strategy .............................. 109
Table 7. Summary of Sample Data Collection .................................................................. 120
Table 8. Summary of DCS Stakeholder Findings and Results for Validating Assumed
Influences: Knowledge: Declarative, Procedural, Metacognitive ....................... 181
Table 9. Summary of DCS Stakeholder Findings and Results for Validating Assumed
Influences: Motivation ......................................................................................... 183
Table 10. Summary of DCS Stakeholder Findings and Results for Validating Assumed
Influences: Organizational—Focus Groups ......................................................... 184
Table 11. Summary of DCS Stakeholder Findings and Results for Validating Assumed
Influences: Organizational—Administrative Interviews ..................................... 186
Table 12. Summary of Influences Validated as Barrier ....................................................... 199
Table 13. Summary of Influences Validated as Barrier in Part ........................................... 200
Table 1. Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals....... 207
Table 14. Proposed Solutions for Validated Barriers and Partly Validated Barriers ........... 210
Table 3. Kirkpatrick Four Levels of Evaluations ............................................................... 237
Table 15. Expected Outcomes, Metrics and Methods ......................................................... 240
Table 16. Outcome, Metric(s), Method(s), and Timing: Assessing—Critical Behaviors ... 241
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
ix
Table 17. Methods, Timing, and Critical Behaviors: Required Drivers—Outcomes .......... 242
Table 18. Components of Learning for the Program ........................................................... 245
Table 19. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program ............................................. 245
Table 20. Guskey’s Five Critical Levels for Evaluating Professional Development .......... 246
Table 21. Micro-Credential Orientation Evaluation Instrument .......................................... 248
Table 22. Micro-Credential Interrogative Evaluation Instrument ....................................... 249
Table 1. Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals....... 251

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
x
List of Figures
Figure 1. Gap Analysis Process Model ............................................................................... 18
Figure 2. The Black Boxes of Teacher and Student Learning ............................................ 37
Figure 3. Three Facets of Motivational Performance .......................................................... 48
Figure 4. Increasing Motivation Factors ............................................................................. 51
Figure 5. The New World Kirkpatrick Model ..................................................................... 85
Figure 1. Gap Analysis Process Model ............................................................................... 87
Figure 3. Three Facets of Motivational Performance .......................................................... 141
Figure 6. Self-assessment for Stakeholder Collaboration ................................................... 214
Figure 7. Collective Personal and Professional Goal Identification ................................... 217
Figure 5. The New World Kirkpatrick Model ..................................................................... 238
Figure 8. Guskey’s Evaluation Framework ......................................................................... 246
Figure 9. Guskey and Sparks' Relationship Model: development and improvements ........ 248

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
xi
Abstract
California Transitional Services (CTS) provides various resources for individuals of all
ages seeking assistance in living autonomous, productive, and prosperous lives (CTS,
2020). For females classified as Transition Age Youth (TAY) within the U.S. foster care
system (CASALA, 2019), CTS offers provisional therapeutic services in Short-term
Residential Therapeutic Program (STRTP) facilities until the age of 19. CTS’ STRTP
living accommodations serve a specific TAY female clientele that has exhausted long-
term foster care opportunities. The residential homes offer a more intimate and private
environment with assistance and resources ranging from trauma counseling, group
therapy, rehabilitation, and transitional education accountability (CTS, 2020). CTS’
STRTP TAY residential services for females between the ages of 13-19 is a critical
research consideration to evaluate the efficacy of services designed to promote
sustainable skills for lifelong stability, self-sufficiency, and contentment. The purpose of
this study was to implement a Gap Analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008) model to analyze and
evaluate knowledge, motivation, and organizational (i.e., KMO) factors impacting
educational, psychological, and social autonomy impeding TAY high school graduation
rates and college and career readiness. An outcome of this study was to facilitate viable
consultation for the reallocation and proficient use of TAY resources leading toward
sustainable TAY autonomy. An appraisal of educational, psychological, and social
components were integrated from the Gap Analysis findings (Ambrose et al., 2010; Clark
& Estes, 2008), guiding and promoting a tangible, scripted protocol of required resources
to promote high school graduation rates and support services for viable independence
beyond STRTP residency. Findings and solutions addressed validated, partially validated,
or not validated KMO domains for integration, refinement, and developmental resources.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
xii
Knowledge Declarative data analyzed cognitive science, pedagogy, instrumentation, self-
regulation, and self-confidence. Knowledge Procedural data measured differentiation,
goal values, methodology, data collection, and collaborative strategies. Knowledge
Metacognitive data reported cognitive taxonomy, attributions and contingencies, schema,
and cognitive attrition. Motivational data measured choice selection, instructional design,
goal values, socio-cultural and emotional influences, schema integration, and cognitive
barriers. Lastly, Organizational data quantified CTS’ professional learning and
instructional design, fidelity of TAY resources, accountability protocol, cross-
disciplinary alignment, incentivization, collaboration, and culture/climate factors.

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
xiii
Executive Summary
This dissertation addresses the important issue and responsibility of improving resources
and services offered to foster care children between the ages of 13-19. Foster care children in this
age range are preparing for independent life by pursuing high school graduation and necessary
college and career life skills. Transitional Age Youth (TAY) is the name given to these children
that will soon leave, graduate, or “age-out” from the support and guidance of the foster care
system. This study’s focus was to look at the present care and strategies offered to prepare more
TAY children to graduate from high school, to develop social and mental wellbeing, and to gain
valuable college and career opportunities. Specifically, this study focused on one category of
TAY students: females living in short-term, group homes. Addressing ways to improve the
quality of help available to these young TAY women is an area of great concern and urgency
since many TAY are not properly prepared to transition from foster care to adult life. The
research indicates that many TAY are not achieving a complete high school education with the
proper skills required for independent life when exiting the foster care system (e.g., attendance in
college and career readiness skills).
In 2017, almost 30% of all children leaving California’s Foster Care system were TAY.
These exiting TAY reported more absences, more suspensions, and low-rates of high school or
GED completion (CDE, 2020). These TAY are more likely to experience unemployment,
poverty, criminal activity, pregnancy, and depression (AFCARS, 2019). As a result, TAY are
transitioning into emancipated life without the necessary academic and social skills, educational
qualifications, and community resources (Courtney, Dworsky, & Peters, 2009).
This study approached analyzing present TAY services and resources by looking at areas
related to knowledge barriers, motivation influences, and organizational support (KMO). Using a
KMO approach, assessment of the quality of TAY services at several female group homes,
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
xiv
operated by the alias California Transitional Services (CTS), identified the need for substantial
improvements to help these TAY girls succeed upon leaving beyond the foster care, group
homes.
The following research question was used in this study: Does CTS’ Direct Care Staff
(DCS) have the knowledge, motivation and organizational goal values to serve and resource the
needs of the TAY learner? The following steps were used for the research design. Step 1, CTS’
DCS stakeholder was selected with daily and consistent access to the TAY learner to help
improve teacher modeling and support. Step 2, Methodology used was an analysis of assumed
KMO gaps. Step 3, DCS teaching and TAY support strategies focused on increasing high school
graduation for college and career skills. Step 4 and 5 focused on TAY life beyond foster care and
the skills needed for self-sufficiency (i.e., educational, psychological, and social autonomy).
This dissertation is organized with five chapters. Chapter One states the problem. Chapter Two
discusses relevant literature. Chapter Three indicates the methodology, participants, data
collection, data analysis, role of researcher, and limitations. Chapter Four reports on KMO
findings. Chapter Five discusses KMO solutions, implementations, and evaluation
recommendations.
Using interviews, focus groups, and review of documents and budgets, the study
identified several gaps in the provision of services to the young TAY women being served in the
group homes. KMO Knowledge data investigated Declarative, Procedural, and Metacognitive
causes and determined these areas to be a validated concern with a No, Yes, or Partial.
Declarative Knowledge data were identified measuring Declarative Content, Cognitive Science,
Cross-disciplinary Applications, and Accountability (i.e., DCS and TAY). Declarative
Knowledge gaps focus on the DCS learning more about the subject matter and strategies on how
to teach better. Cognitive Science was identified as “Yes.” CTS would benefit from using
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
xv
strategies on understanding how the brain learns best and how to identify necessary information
needed to avoid confusion and/or frustration. Pedagogical Instruction was identified as
“Partially.” CTS needs to continue their efforts in practicing best teaching and learning
strategies. Assessment Tools was identified as “Partially.” CTS should continue to use fair and
honest tests and evaluations to encourage learning. Content Descriptors were identified as
“Partially.” This gap indicates a need to give extra help with difficult teaching and learning
information.
Procedural Knowledge data were identified measuring Evaluation, Feedback, and
Content Value. Procedural knowledge gaps concentrate on teaching the staff how to best
evaluate the problems that the TAY exhibit and what strategies to use to help the TAY become
academically, emotionally, and socially strong. Differentiated Strategies was identified as
“Partially.” CTS shows a need to provide choices and different ways of teaching and learning.
This helps to encourage the idea that everyone feels part of the way teaching and learning
happens in the TAY homes. Academic TAY Modeling was identified as “Partially.” Some of the
DCS did not have backgrounds or understanding of how to best show the TAY student to learn
the best and easiest. Evaluative Methodology was identified as “Yes.” Some of the DCS said
they were confused and fearful of how their supervisors judged their work. CTS can get better in
communicating why and how evaluations are used to improve DCS instruction and TAY
learning. Instrumentation was identified as “Yes.” This gap means that CTS needs to consistently
adopt and support good, consistent, and fair ways to measure DCS teaching and TAY learning.
Collaborative Strategies was identified as “Partially.” This gap suggests that CTS needs to use
more collaboration strategies to help the DCS and TAY learn from each other.

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
xvi
Metacognitive Knowledge data were identified measuring Personal Reflection Schema,
Collaborative Feedback Modeling, and Goal Orientations Development. For metacognitive
knowledge, the DCS need help working with the TAY students (e.g., academics, social skills,
self-regulation) and understanding how to meet the needs of the TAY learner. Reflection and
Feedback was identified as “Yes.” CTS needs to create more chances for the DCS and TAY
learner to reflect and think about what is or is not working. Schema Development was identified
as “Yes.” DCS pointed to a gap that more time is needed to develop best teaching and learning
ideas. This gap is concerned with helping the teacher and learner identify and limit the many
distractions that can get in the way of learning best. Cognitive Attrition was identified as “Yes.”
CTS needs to allow practice for the DCS and the TAY learner to know when and why learning
can be limited by exhaustion and/or too much information at one time. Self-regulation was
identified as “Partially.” CTS shows a gap in practicing ways to best manage the DCS and TAY
responsibilities. Progress Monitoring was identified as “Partially.” The DCS indicated a gap in
the need for greater consistency in making and achieving goals.
Motivational factors were independently assumed and validated. KMO Motivational
data determined areas of concern with a No, Yes, or Partial. Motivational data were identified
measuring DCS Stakeholder Ownership, Identified Learning Modalities, and Collaborative
Practices. Motivation gaps discuss why the DCS staff can often have low motivation and ways to
best be able to help them improve their efforts. Choice Selection was identified as “Yes.” The
DCS talked about the desire to be a part of the teaching and learning choices. Goal Values was
identified as “Yes.” CTS needs to help the DCS and TAY learner find a relationship between
goals and motivation. Attributions were identified as “Partially.” CTS needs to continue to help
the DCS and TAY learner be aware of how social and emotional stress can impact motivation
and success. Confidence and Efficacy was identified as “Partially.” CTS would benefit choosing
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
xvii
and developing strategies that are designed and adopted by all learners to increase personal
confidence, ownership, and success. Culture and Climate was identified as “Partially.” CTS
should continue to put forth the effort to develop a friendly and caring culture that is committed
to the success of the TAY learner.
Organizational data were identified measuring Document Analysis, Motivational
Measures, Climate and Culture, Collaboration, and Engagement. The following KMO
Organizational data determined areas of concern with a No, Yes, or Partial. Organizational gaps
focus on the problem of not having enough money, having limited accountability for being
successful with the TAY, and possessing little incentive to do a good job. Fidelity of Resources
were identified as “Partially.” CTS needs to make sure that the money being spent on TAY
resources is used correctly and intelligently. Accountability was identified as “Partially.”
Accountability gaps emphasize that CTS needs to provide ways for all participants to be held
answerable for fulfilling their job responsibilities. Alignment and Cohesion was identified as
“Yes.” The DCS indicated a gap that larger goals are disconnected from smaller goals often used
in the short-term, group homes. Incentivization was identified as “Partially.” CTS needs to
provide more motivating rewards to encourage and motivate the DCS and TAY. Feedback and
Reflection was identified as “Partially.” There is a noticeable gap for CTS to improve the
frequency and long-term use of feedback and reflection strategies.
Chapter 5 addresses KMO and Organizational Solutions, Implementation Strategies, and
Evaluation Plans based on Chapter Four’s data. The analysis of the KMO gaps identified in this
study help to guide the following proposed improvements to provide potential solutions. KMO
Solutions address Evaluation and Feedback, Defining Goals, Fidelity of Resources,
Anthropological Investigations, Microaggressions, Differentiated Choice, Persistence, Mental
Effort, and Networking. Organizational Solutions focus on Setting, Cultural Barriers,
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
xviii
Collaborative Solutions, Assessment Tools, Feedback, Reflection, and Quasi-administrative
Leadership. Overall, solutions addressed fixing gaps in defining clearer goals, raising additional
money, understanding more about each TAY child, helping students understand the impact of
microaggressions they are committing, how to help them succeed over time in the facility, and
how to network for relationship building.
Implementation Strategies focus on integration and monitoring methodology. The
analysis of the KMO gaps identified in this study help to guide the following implementation
strategies: Organizational Integrated Resources, Expert to Novice Ratio, Cognitive Attrition,
Collaborative Coaching, Collegiality, Collaborative Contracts, Micro-credential Integration,
Instrumentation and Methodology, Goal Targeting, Culture and Climate Efficacy. Overall,
implementation strategies propose integrated resources from multiple social service agencies,
more experts to help compared to novice service providers, coaching and leadership
opportunities, contracts for behavior and/or performance, setting goals for DCS and TAY
performance, and offering self-efficacy training to promote independent learning.
To gauge the success of these changes, the following evaluation process will be used.
Evaluative Plans were developed by using the New World Kirkpatrick Model (NWKM). Level 4
utilized Results, Leading Indicators, and Desired Outcomes as evaluative measures. Level 3
focused on Behaviors. Level 3 is used to Monitor, Reinforce, Reward, and Encourage
stakeholders to achieve short and long-term value. Level 2 addressed development and alignment
of learning goals. Lastly, Level 1 considered pre and post Reactions. Level 1 of the NWKM
considers “post-reaction,” “engagement,” “relevance,” and “customer satisfaction.” Identified
KMO gaps with specific solutions, implementations, and evaluation methods are designed to
help improve both the quality and cost effectiveness of TAY services and resources. Evaluation
targets will look for increased graduate rates, college and career success, and better social
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
xix
communication with peers, teachers/counselors, and parents. It is the hope to evaluate whether
or not there are changes in behavior to improve outcomes that lead to greater academic and
social success for TAY young women leaving foster care with the necessary skills for an
independent, sustainable life.
In conclusion, it is anticipated that addressing the identified gaps with the suggested
improvements in services for TAY living in short-term, group homes will improve in high school
graduation rates and college and career readiness. Implementation of this framework will create
an effective intervention that addresses KMO gaps unique to the TAY context. This framework,
if implemented with steadfastness, hopes to improve CTS’ TAY resources and services with
special emphasis on educational practices that honor CTS’ mission statement. It is hoped that the
identified KMO gaps in this research can be used by other organizations with similar needs and
concerns. As a result, the value of this research will create awareness and improve the necessary
TAY resources and services required to live a happy, healthy, and positive life.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
1
CHAPTER ONE:
INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM OF PRACTICE
Education is inseparable from the inherent directive of leading to and protection of truth,
a pedagogical guidance toward greater understanding, conviction, resilience, and purpose
(Etymonline, 2020). The numerous contingencies that contour an individual’s existence affect
long-term cognitive development, opportunity, and goal orientation values (Yough & Anderman
2010). Aligning to specific socio-philosophical ethics, a quintessential imperative exists within
humanity, an instinctive impulse, to protect and celebrate “dignity, the moral right of man to
life, its development and cultivation, as well as the values of justice, responsibility, tolerance,
and obligation” (Gluchman, 2017, p. 1). Targeting at-risk populations marginalized by socio-
cultural and emotional factors impeding equity and access (Weiner, 1972) is, consequentially, a
salient ethical accountability and altruistic responsibility (Scott & Palinscar, 2006).
Referencing the 2019 Congressional Research Service report (CRS), in 1986, federal
child welfare programs of the Social Security Act amended Title IV-E by adding section 477.
Section 477 launched the Independent Living Initiative (ILI), aiding the adjustment from foster
care to independence (Sims, 1988) for Transition Age Youth (TAY) between the ages 13-19
(CASALA, 2019). Studies suggesting TAY reliance on homeless shelters, beyond the age of 18,
prompted the Title IV-E amendment to promote transitional support and autonomy (Sims, 1988).
From 1987 to 1988, section 477 allotted $45 million annually for individual States to design and
support “independent living services” for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)
(U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2020, p. 1). AFDC eligibility was reserved for
TAY ages 16 until the age of 18 when children no longer qualified for foster care maintenance
payments (Sims, 1988). In 1999, the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Act (CFCIP)
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
2
created provisional federal assistance to sponsor TAY self-sufficiency via grant proposals to
develop specific opportunities in “education, employment, financial management, housing,
emotional support, and assured connections” (Children’s Bureau Office of the Administration for
Children & Families, 2012, p. 1). In 2002, the Educational and Training Vouchers Program
(ETV) for TAY supplemented the CFCIP to draw more participants as beneficiaries of federal
aid sponsoring educational initiatives encouraging self-sufficiency (Carroll & Bishop, 2002). To
encompass the ETV services to “aged-out” (Casey Family Programs, 2019) TAY beyond the age
of 18, in 2008, the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act (P.L. 110-
351) was passed extending TAY foster care services to age 21 with conditional criteria
(Courtney, Dworsky, & Peters, 2009; H.R. Res. 6893, 2008).
The 2019 Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) states
that of the 687,345 children receiving social services nationwide, a total of 250,103 children
exited the US foster care system. According to the Children’s Bureau Office of the
Administration for Children and Families (2017), California’s 51,866 foster care population is
the largest in the US with 28,539 children withdrawing from the system due to different
circumstances: reconciliation, adoption, guardianships, or emancipation. In 2010, California
adopted P.L. 110-351 with the passing of Assembly Bill 12 (AB 12), extending TAY foster care
to 21 while contingent on specific criteria qualifications: pursuit of a high school or general
education diploma (GED); half-time enrollment in college or vocational education; 80 hours per
month of paid employment; employment programs; or verified medical classification (California
Department of Social Services, 2020). In 2017, despite the AB 12 age-extension to 21 with
modified conditions, TAY represented 29.6% of all children leaving California foster care due to
volitional withdrawal or program completion (Casey Family Programs, 2019). Of the total 29.6%
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
3
of TAY exiting foster care, 13% (i.e., 3,710) were TAY who did not meet the minimum
qualifications under the new AB12 criteria due to non-qualified education, employment, or
medical status (Casey Family Programs, 2019).
Regardless of the modified AB 12 rules for aged-out TAY, the 2020 National Youth in
Transition Database Report to Congress (NYTD) highlights the complexities of TAY welfare
services, related policy, and legislation while illuminating the deficiencies in pertinent research
impacting TAY independence. Accessing full advantage of AB 12 modifications is theoretically
accessible; however, studies indicate the 13% TAY aged-out population exits the foster care with
low-rates of high school or GED completion suggesting deficiencies in college and career
readiness (Courtney, Okpych, & Park, 2018). For example, the California Department of
Education (CDE) (2020) foster youth data reported deficiencies in every category compared to
non-foster youth: 16% more absences; 12% more suspensions; 27% less in CAASPP ELA; 25%
less in CAASPP math; and 29% less in graduation rates. Consequently, TAY transition into
emancipated life without sustainable academic and social skills, educational qualifications, and
communal resources for sustaining autonomy (Courtney et al., 2018). Additionally, independent
TAY are statistically more likely to experience unemployment, poverty, criminal activity, and
depression (Keller, Salazar, & Courtney, 2010; Stott & Gustavsson, 2010). In 2015, the Every
Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was passed to address negative social outcomes for TAY to track
academic performance on standardized state assessments and high school graduation by 2018
(Stringer, Kenny, Kim, & Kelly 2019). However, in 2017, ESSA was eliminated by Congress
using the Congressional Review Act, a vote of 50–49, (Phenicie, 2017) leaving only California
and 15 other states responding to ESSA’s mandate to monitor educational progress for foster
youth (Stringer et al., 2019).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
4
The 2020 CDE annual report does not account for disaggregated data specific to
California’s TAY graduates living in diverse foster residential care: Short-Term Residential
Therapeutic Programs (STRTP) (as cited in Keller et al., 2010). Stott and Gustavsson (2010)
address the wide variety of impediments impacting TAY autonomy, arguing that TAY are
influenced by the longevity and stability of their residential foster care with a variety of
accessible benefits and services (NYTD, 2020). TAY can range from multiple residences to
medical facilities, single to group homes, and from long to STRTP (e.g., STRTP) placements
(Courtney et al., 2018; Stott & Gustavsson 2010). As evidenced by the congressional
amendments to foster care welfare programs, TAY continue to lack the consistent and permanent
fidelity of resources required for emancipatory transition with long-term sustainability.
Advocating for successful resources for profitable TAY independence, “epistemological
commitments” and “methodological approaches” related to “cognitive science and
developmental psychology” are predicted in viable research designs (Mayer & Alexander, 2017,
pp. 57-58). A complex landscape with wide-ranging elements that straddle knowledge,
motivational, and organizational factors requires patience and fidelity of resources to modify
personal and systemic change (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Viable research is best
generalized for latitudinal refinement if the design can create a framework that capitalizes on the
homogeneity of variables (McEwan & McEwan, 2003). Directing research questions and design
from the national foster-care system to a localized Southern California TAY female population
in STRTP group residency affords a purposeful application of statistical research to acquire a
targeted understanding of factors related to sustainable and self-sufficient TAY autonomy. This
study strategically compacts the scope and sequence of the intended research population to make
definable, pragmatic change empirically observed through personal, systemic, cultural, and
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
5
generational reform. To protect the generalizability of the research design’s external validity
complemented by instrumental reliability (McEwan & McEwan, 2003; Robinson Kurpius &
Stafford, 2006), the following research design focuses on the alias California based California
Transitional Services’ (CTS) group homes in Southern California, targeting STRTP residential
resources and benefits to promote sustainability for TAY females between the ages of 13-19. A
critique of effective and accessible TAY services and benefits will be analyzed for application
and proficiency for achieving high school graduation rates and college and career readiness
among TAY female living in CTS’ STRTP, group homes.
Organizational Context and Mission
Using the alias California Transitional Services (CTS) for confidentiality, CTS provides
various resources for individuals of all ages seeking assistance in living autonomous, productive,
and prosperous lives (CTS, 2020). In the 1960s, approximately 3800 children with cognitive and
emotional concerns were resourced through California state-funded mental institutions (CTS,
2020). CTS adopted a mission to solicit alternative solutions for provisional resources,
advocating for community-based residential facilities offering living and learning skills
necessary to be profitable participants in the community (CTS, 2020). With the addition of
varied resources, CTS eventually extended services to promote tailored educational curricula and
community programs: to help children, youth, and young adults at risk of being placed in
residential treatment, juvenile detention, psychiatric hospitalization, and other restrictive, non-
family settings (CTS, 2020, p. 1). Encompassing 50 years of service, CTS presently employs
approximately 1000 professionals serving to fulfill the commitment to facilitate access to
medical (e.g., specialty mental health and medication support), psychological (e.g.., behavioral
and emotional therapy), and residential (e.g., long-term foster homes and STRTP group homes)
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
6
assets pertinent for living independent and productive lives (CTS, 2020). CTS’ longstanding
social service and noted stakeholder dedication is complementary to the needs and services
pertinent for TAY independence.
The following research framework intentionally narrows CTS’ services to analyze
therapeutic resources for TAY females living in STRTP, group homes with the following
mission objective: to assist with the stabilization of youth challenges and facilitate a successful
transition to their family, community, and education supports (CTS, 2020, p. 1). A full-range of
CTS services and partnerships related to TAY STRTP group home residential benefits will be
addressed and critiqued for efficacy and accessibility: trauma-informed care environment,
individualized team planning support process, group rehabilitation services, education support
services, supportive transition and permanency preparation services, and post-transition/aftercare
services (CTS, 2020). CTS’ STRTP, group home living accommodations serve a specific TAY
female clientele that has exhausted long-term foster care opportunities. CTS’ group residences
are designed to offer an intimate and private environment with diverse assistance and resources
(i.e., trauma counseling, group therapy, psychological rehabilitation, educational training, life
skill lessons, and transitional education accountability) (CTS, 2020).
The barriers impeding TAY sustainability (e.g., graduation rates and residential
displacement), despite defined programs and amended legislation, justifies an accountability of
the proficiency and allocation of resources and funds related to the social and cultural
contingencies specific to this targeted population. As a result, CTS’ STRTP TAY services and
resources of females between the ages of 13-19 is a critical research consideration to evaluate the
efficacy of services designed to promote sustainable academic and social skills (i.e., graduation
and college and career readiness) for lifelong stability, self-sufficiency, and contentment.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
7
Organizational Performance Status
National and state-wide accountability reports display the graduation rate and college and
career readiness deficits from TAY foster care (Courtney et al., 2018). CTS’ services are charged
with the complicated task to contain, support, inspire, and improve an identified at-risk female
TAY clientele that, despite a variety of resources, are graduating at lower rates than non-foster
care youth. As stated, research suggests that TAY females living in STRTP, group homes are at
high-risk of not qualifying for AB12 extended foster care services. As a result, TAY typically
withdraw from the foster system at age 18, becoming vulnerable to unemployment,
homelessness, psychological impediments, and derailed professional objectives (Keller et al.,
2010; Stott & Gustavsson, 2010; Stringer et al., 2019). Research indicating the level of disparity
of graduation and college readiness while accessing foster care resources (i.e., CTS) affects the
viability of national and state-wide supported programs that are not producing concrete outcomes
(e.g., graduation rates, employment, and technical skills) aligned to adopted program objectives
and stated mission statements (Brantley, 2020, as cited in County of Los Angeles, 2020; Stringer
et al., 2019).
CTS’ services that are not achieving TAY graduation rates near or at the same proportion
as non-foster youth compel further study to improve successful program access and completion
(Brantley, 2020, as cited in County of Los Angeles, 2020; Stringer et al., 2019). Considering an
inclusive analysis of CTS stakeholders accountable for TAY attainment, the TAY learner
stakeholder lacks consistent residency, psychological stability, and cognitive maturity to self-
advocate for long-term success. Choosing CTS’ STRTP “direct care” personnel as the primary
stakeholder due to direct and regular integration of TAY support is a proficient and practical
strategy to critique TAY resource deficiencies. An evaluation of CTS’ professional training
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
8
resources and services for Direct Care Staff (DCS) stakeholders are defined as a person “who
provides direct care and supervision, as well as facilitates activities and provides support
services” (CDSS: STRTP, 2020, p. 12). For the purpose of this research design, DCS
stakeholders will encompass three specific CTS partnerships sharing educational, social,
physical, and psychological responsibilities facilitating “direct care” TAY services and
resources. Each DCS arm offers specific expertise and resources specific to the CDSS’ STRTP
Interim Licensing Standards (ILS) (CDSS: STRTP, 2020). For clarity and simplicity, this
research will extend CDSS’ ILS definition of DCS stakeholders—encompassing a wide-range of
TAY support—to include CTS’ educational, social, physical, and psychological partnerships as
the “DCS stakeholder.” This research design will focus on CTS’ DCS stakeholder to determine
any deficiencies negatively affecting the “direct care” ability to properly serve the TAY learner
(2020). The following research is guided by the California Department of Social Services’
(CDSS) STRTP framework for Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI): The process of
identifying, describing, and analyzing strengths and problems and then testing, implementing,
learning from, and revising solutions to improve the quality of core services and supports
(CDSS: STRTP, 2020, p. 10).
Related Gap Analysis Literature
The primary objective of this research design is to identify why CTS’ STRTP, group
home TAY females are not achieving the desired high school graduation rates and, consequently,
college and career readiness skills necessary for independence. A Gap Analysis will be used to
indicate and improve “gaps” (Clark & Estes, 2008) in CTS’ TAY group-home resources and
services concerning knowledge, motivation, and organizational (i.e., KMO) factors
impacting related educational goals. A KMO Gap Analysis will test the fidelity of CTS’ TAY
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
9
program and develop practical solutions to improve TAY high school graduation rates and skills
required for adult life. Validating data-driven “intervention” strategies exposed in the Gap
Analysis will strengthen the personalized and differentiated academic experiences of the
individual TAY learner.
Clark & Estes (2008) state that the individual’s unique principal knowledge and
motivational behaviors become necessary to effectively integrate the learner into the
intervention. Intentionally accommodating prior-knowledge, motivation, personality, aptitudes,
and behaviors become elemental to the adoption and success of the curriculum (Kurpius &
Stafford, 2006) and proficient use of TAY resources. Engagement is often an elusive variable
necessary for deep, powerful, visibly sustainable growth. Communicating and validating the
fidelity of TAY resources is inseparable from implementation that diligently communicates the
socio-cultural and psychological variables of the individual learner (Gasiewski, Eagen, Garica,
Hurtado, & Chang, 2011).
Anticipating and accounting for abstract socio-emotional factors significantly impact
motivational adoption, influencing self-confidence, socio-cultural inadequacies, and behavior
impeding academic engagement (Gasiewski et al., 2011). The necessity to measure and
essentially quantify variables like motivation will be dependent on the success of the analysis
used to identify the limitations, disconnects, or gaps “between goals and current performance”
(Clark & Estes, 2008, xii).
Identifying KMO gaps relates to the context of delivery, perspectives, and goal
orientations of the learners (Senko, Hulleman, & Harackiewicz, 2011). The overall KMO study
seeks to identify and differentiate gaps in the training of professionals (i.e., DCS stakeholder)
providing services to TAY, improving chances for TAY success upon exiting the program. To do
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
10
this, the DCS stakeholder needs to understand the academic and socio-emotional needs of the
TAY learner. CTS’ varied DCS personnel are used to address the complex educational, physical,
sociological, and psychological factors, representing KMO domains (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Research on personalized learning emphasizes differentiated professional development,
varied learning strategies and content delivery, and personalized and strategically articulated goal
orientation values of the identified stakeholder (Reeves, 2002; Timperley & Alton-Lee, 2008).
Resourcing academic and socio-emotional needs of a TAY population is most efficiently
addressed in the research-driven professional development offered to faculty, staff, and ancillary
professional guidance (e.g., DCS: academic counselors, teachers, mentors, and psychologists)
modeling effective intervention strategies for TAY application. The challenge is to research,
design, implement, and revise professional development approaches that reinforce accountability
and produce TAY growth in academic and social performance for independent sustainability
(Timperley, Wilson, Barrar, & Fung, 2008).
CTS’ DCS personnel are challenged with a unique responsibility that supplies pervasive
reinforcement of physical, mental, academic, and social prerequisites. Consequently, the
prevalent access and impact that CTS’ personnel has on their TAY population require a rigid
critique of the fidelity of adopted professional and personal learning paradigms designed to
model accountability for TAY transference. The efficacy of the adoption and integration of
organizational training or professional development on personnel is often scrutinized by
professional researchers and consultants specializing in the analysis and evaluation of employee
training programs (Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009). CTS’
professional development will be reinforced through data-driven differentiated strategies, varied
perspectives, diverse expertise, and unilateral application of KMO domains related to cognitive
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
11
science, motivational attributes, and systemic organizational protocol. Professional development
that accounts for and accommodates the educator’s (i.e., DCS stakeholder) personalized learning
attributes, aids the proficiency of expert to novice reassignment while promoting long-term, self-
directed learning (Clark, 2012).
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The mission of CTS (2020) is to faithfully integrate and utilize programs and services for
TAY autonomy that inspires the learner to intrinsically pursue and extrinsically achieve lifelong
prosperity and happiness (Senko et al., 2011). TAY are highly impressionable and susceptible to
the positive and negative experiences influencing cognitive growth, psychological stability,
philosophical ideology, and physical safety (Ambrose et al., 2010; Brown & Wilderson’s 2010;
Klasey & Brantley-Harris, 2020; Stott, 2012; Yough & Anderman 2010). The stability of
residential-life and the instructional reinforcement in preparation for independence is the most
susceptible level for overall mental development, shaping personal values and long-term goals
(Senko et al., 2011). Education, despite the medium of access, functions as a greenhouse of
preparation that endeavors to nurture responsible citizens with knowledge, life-skills, and
experience for autonomous living.
It becomes imperative to critically examine DCS pedagogical methods, psychological
strategies, and organizational operations that are driven by the data, tailored to the specific
context, and holistic to the TAY population concerning cognitive differentiation as well as
qualitative values (e.g., motivation, self-regulation, self-esteem) (Ambrose et al., 2010).
Identifying the in-house, DCS professionals as the most pragmatic stakeholder, the research
design objective is to build empirical skills, increase high school graduation rates, and promote
post-secondary college and career readiness for independent sustainability and success. The
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
12
whole learner, concrete and abstract, must capitalize on motivational and cognitive theories to
gain awareness of psychological attributes impacting engagement (Gasiewski et al., 2011).
Analysis of DCS resources and services will be applied to independent and dependent KMO
factors affecting stakeholder modeling for the TAY learner.
Organizational Performance Goal
Referencing literature and research findings, there is an organizational gap and objective
obligation to design, implement, and reinforce, with management oversight, the fidelity of
resources, the efficacy of execution, and the consistency of implementation of a TAY resource
intervention and resource allocation program. This will reinforce alignment to state, national, and
organizational goal orientations to promote access and equity for a statistically marginalized
TAY female population vulnerable to a myriad of socio-cultural factors (Keller, et. Al, 2010;
Klasey & Brantley-Harris, 2020).
In one year after integration of improved and suggested resource intervention strategies
designed for the DCS professional stakeholders, CTS’ organizational structure and
implementation of programs and services will be practiced in all TAY group homes and
communicated in all applicable mission statements. The desired organizational goal is to claim
visible reciprocity between all TAY facilities with a diligent system to monitor and track
graduation rates and post-secondary involvement. Among the TAY female group home
population, CTS will seek to achieve an 80% high school graduation rate to close the 29%
achievement gap disparity between foster care TAY and non-foster care learners reported on the
2020 CDE accountability report.

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
13
Stakeholders: Identification and Performance Goals
The organizational goal of increasing CTS’ TAY high school graduation rates among
females residing in STRTP, group home facilities is interdependent on the fidelity of resources
and services accessed and utilized by all pertinent stakeholders: TAY females, DCS, CTS
organizational administration, community and charitable volunteers, educational instructors, law
enforcement personnel, and state officials. CTS’ in-home DCS have the opportunity to directly
impact TAY high school graduation rates due to the direct, consistent, and integrated contact
with the TAY learner. Though the TAY learner stakeholder is ultimately responsible for
academic attainment, the DCS stakeholder is suggested to be the most reliable and diligent (e.g.,
employment incentives, maturity, professional and paraprofessional skills, and legal
accountability) to effectively utilize and engage all “active ingredients” influencing knowledge,
motivation, and organizational variables (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 126).
The primary constituents involved will be TAY learners, DCS, teachers, and
counselors. The central focus will rely on identifying and accommodating the KMO needs
uncovered from the Gap Analysis with direct application to CTS’ DCS with direct, daily access
to the learner stakeholder (i.e., DCS). The knowledge and motivational “ingredients” to achieve
TAY organizational goals are best analyzed through the DCS lens while the TAY learner and
ancillary support (i.e., teachers, counselors, administrators) facilitate and support the learning
process leading toward graduation. Guided by KMO Gap Analysis results, the management and
implementation of the resources involved in the resource intervention proposed solutions to
monitor and increase high school graduation rates will be managed by CTS DCS staff with close
collaboration with relevant professional and paraprofessional personnel (e.g., DCS teachers,
tutors, counselors, mentors). In-home DCS will provide orientation and initial modeling of
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
14
strategies based on KMO findings. Ancillary DCS support will collaborate with in-home DCS to
provide communication support of individual TAY student progress and resource intervention
goals with quarterly communication to support KMO development indicated by the research
design (e.g., email, meetings, professional development). Teacher and counselor support roles
will be replaced as liaison facilitators that help guide, support, and train DCS instructional and
accountability needs for the TAY learner that are discovered in the Gap Analysis (e.g.,
pedagogical techniques, metacognitive knowledge, self-efficacy strategies, motivational theories)
through individual or group learning.
Indicated KMO deficiencies from the research will be complemented by constant
pedagogical adjustments and revision to allow for the empirical evaluation of the student’s
qualitative “contingencies” affecting learning (Brown, Henderson, Gray, Donovan, & Sullivan,
2013). The DCS as stakeholder will create a differentiated learning experience while monitoring
and increasing affective change in relation to the research findings and organizational goals
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Alignment of the DCS stakeholders’ personalized, professional learning
with the school’s mission statement will be contingent on addressing KMO findings influencing
academic, social, and psychological competencies. The organizational goal will be fragmented
and marginalized if knowledge is measured only quantitatively without the faithful attempt to
support the DCS stakeholder in place to address the needs of the whole student: social, cultural,
motivational, and psychological qualitative variables (Brown, et al., 2013).
Every stage of the resource intervention adoption process will be tailored from the Gap
Analysis results to support the DCS stakeholder in modeling, guiding, and motivating the
students to practice individual and peer-related activities on metacognitive evaluation, schema
development, and solutions influencing competency (Rueda, 2011). Fostering student-centered
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
15
metacognitive abilities will complement adopted strategies and identified attributions (e.g.,
motivational, self-regulation, value-based, social, and cultural) (Anderman, E & Anderman, L
2010). As stated, the following Gap Analysis will focus on the DCS stakeholder due to the
direct, daily, and concentrated integration of KMO strategies for TAY transfer. See Table 1.
Table 1. Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Vision
To be a community leader and exemplary model in promoting sustainable independence for
TAY foster care children residing in community-based live-in facilities seeking assistance in
living autonomous, productive, and prosperous lives.

Organizational Stakeholder Goal
In one year of TAY resource intervention adoption, CTS will chart, monitor, implement,
facilitate, and achieve 80% high school graduation for all senior TAY residents with 60%
verification of AB12 qualification and post-secondary education and/or employment goal
orientations.
DCS Stakeholder Goal
In one year of the TAY resource intervention adoption, the DCS employees will have been
trained, resourced, evaluated, and certified in related high school graduation supports (i.e.,
pedagogical, cognitive, and motivational factors) to promote and validate the organizational
goal mission.
TAY Learner Stakeholder Goal
In one year of the TAY resource intervention adoption, the CTS’ TAY learners will have been
exposed to effective DCS KMO modeling and will display academic and social improvement
impacting high school graduation qualification and college and career readiness for TAY
autonomy.

Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study is to implement a Gap Analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008) to
analyze and evaluate knowledge, motivation, and organizational (i.e., KMO) factors impacting
TAY high school graduation rates and college and career readiness among females living in
CTS’ STRTP, group homes. An outcome of this study is to facilitate viable consultation for the
reallocation and proficient use of TAY resources leading toward sustainable TAY autonomy. An
appraisal of educational, psychological, and social components will be integrated from the Gap
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
16
Analysis findings (Ambrose et al., 2010; Clark & Estes, 2008). A pertinent, comprehensive
literature review provides for the TAY context related to demographics, correlated ethnographic
details, strengths and limitations in existing research, and articulation of the importance,
accountability, and awareness of TAY studies prompting further analysis. Reports indicating
deficiencies in TAY resources for independence, high school and post-secondary achievement,
and systemic social vulnerabilities motivated a critique of the existing foster-care frameworks to
synthesize corporate objectives, strengthen organizational relationships, highlight correlated
social concerns, and reinvigorate social responsibility reinforced by statistical trends shaping
probability and inference. An additional outcome of this study is the accessibility of TAY
intervention strategies produced in a tangible, scripted protocol of required resources that
promote high school graduation rates for viable independence beyond the STRTP.
As stated, the primary STRTP, group home faulty/staff stakeholder will focus on
professional development and daily interaction strategies that encompass KMO domains (Clark
& Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Analysis of TAY graduation rate and college and career readiness
factors began with research on chronological development of foster care legislation. Focusing
the research design’s lateral scope to TAY females living in CTS’ STRTP, group home facilities,
the DCS stakeholder was selected to provide direct and consistent TAY resourcing.
The following three research questions framed this study:
• Does CTS’ DCS have the knowledge to serve the needs of the TAY learner?
• Does CTS’ DCS have the motivation and goal values to serve the needs of the
TAY learner?
• Does CTS’ organizational management support the necessary resources and
services to serve the needs of the TAY learner?
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
17
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
The “idiosyncratic” nature of educational research relies on diverse objective data while
anticipating subjective demographic constructs (McEwan & McEwan, 2003, xiii). An analysis of
pedagogical progression must acknowledge the complexity of its human subjects. A Gap
Analysis philosophy addresses this complexity with both quantitative and qualitative aspects
related to achievement: insufficient knowledge or skills, motivation, and organizational or
cultural barriers (Clark & Estes, 2008). Gap Analysis attempts to infuse an idiomatic human
technology that celebrates the spirit of measuring the immeasurable while proposing causal
relationships: a merging of concrete and abstract variables (Clark & Estes, 2008). These
categories utilize a mixture of both objective and subjective methods rooted in empirical
analysis. It is pertinent to anticipate concrete and abstract factors when addressing performance
improvement or achievement gap deficiencies and protecting the fidelity of data while evaluating
the methods used to “mine” for relevant findings (Cheng, 2017, p. 4). The Gap Analysis
structures specific research frameworks that uncover deficiencies in knowledge contingencies,
motivation factors, and organizational barriers. Through veritable analysis, data-driven solutions
validate the efficacy and reliability of fundamental, integral features to the pre-existing structure
to identify strengths and weaknesses manifested in KMO categories (Rueda, 2011). The
methodological framework is a mixed-method (i.e., quantitative and qualitative) design outlined
by descriptive statistics. National and state-driven accountability research guide the quantitative
data via interviews, focus groups, and surveys that provide documented analysis to investigate
objective gaps (Salkind, 2016). The model is illustrated in Figure 1.

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
18
Figure 1. Gap Analysis Process Model

Source: Adapted from Turning research into results (Clark, R. E., & Estes, F., 2008; Charlotte, NC: Information Age).
Organization of the Dissertation
The following dissertation is organized with five chapters designed with continuity
according to established scientific research methodology. Chapter One focuses on problem
introduction. Chapter Two comprises a progressive literature review concerning contextual TAY
information (e.g., demographics, social vulnerabilities, academic correlations) to establish the
pervasiveness and importance of the problem related to existing studies while prompting further
academic research. Chapter Two’s literature review also integrates KMO research to clarify the
comprehensive critique suggested in addressing organizational, cognitive, philosophical, and
psychological worldviews. Chapter Three articulates the research design’s methodology:
participants, data collection, data analysis, role of researcher, and limitations. Chapter Four
operationalizes the design and visualizes research protocol and findings. Lastly, Chapter Five
suggests data-driven solutions for addressing gap-related KMO deficiencies: correlations,
solutions, and recommendations. (For a list of term definitions and acronyms, see Appendix N).
Step 1
Identify key
organizational goals
Step 2
Identify individual
performance goals
Step 3
Determine
performance gaps
Step 5A
Identify knowledge
& skill solutions
Step 5B
Identify motivation
solutions &
implement
Step 5C
Identify organizational
process & material
solutions & implement
Step 6
Evaluate results,
tune system, and
revise goals
Step 4
Analyze gaps to
determine causes
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
19
CHAPTER TWO:
LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this study is to use a KMO Gap Analysis to understand the gaps in CTS’
ability to serve the social and educational needs of the TAY learner. A Gap Analysis (Clark &
Estes, 2008) was chosen to analyze, evaluate, and develop solutions to provide viable resources
that increase the TAY high school graduation rate among CTS’ STRTP, group home residents.
Applying the KMO tenets within the context of viable professional development paradigms and
relevant, differentiated personalized learning strategies, the described Gap Analysis seeks to
validate the fidelity of performance improvement and accessible transferability of TAY
resources for sustainable independence. McEwan & McEwan (2003, p. 1) state, “Research is the
most powerful instrument to improve student achievement—if only we would try it in a serious
and sustained manner.” The foundational element that justifies organizational and concentrated
change is to use the unbiased, neutrality of numbers to indicate the strengths and deficiencies that
guide research-driven instruction, learning, and allocation of, specifically, TAY
resources. Subjecting the complexity of the TAY learning experience to sterile numbers is a
limited, myopic application to thoroughly and effectively address veritable and sustainable
academic achievement and lifelong cognitive attainment (Veselak, 2018).
As a result of CTS’ group home residential paradigm for TAY females, the many
components of foster-care services and the complexity of the individual learner and learning
context, using viable data to inspire organizational change and drive dynamic utility of TAY
resources are often generalized, leading toward trend and oversimplified implementation
(McEwan & McEwan, 2003). It is an unsurprising reality that most facilitators do not have the
specific skill set to “differentiate viable research from poor research” (McEwan & McEwan,
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
20
2003). The reality for identifying areas of concern within an organization/administration while
simultaneously using the results to drive allocated change and differentiated delivery of services
to accommodate the TAY learner becomes fragmented and distorted in the original intent.
This chapter explores the available literature related to TAY resources and barriers
leading to low rates of graduation and college and career readiness among TAY females living in
comparable residential circumstances. In the analysis and evaluation of effective resources
required for sustainable independence and increased graduation rates among TAY females,
anticipating and accommodating factors corresponding to theoretical and conceptual educational
research affecting knowledge, motivational, and organizational (i.e., KMO) factors accessed
through professional and personal development will be paramount in providing a comprehensive
review with authentic solutions. A deliberated KMO analysis of professional and personal
learning objectives aids in synthesizing the encapsulated TAY residential and learning context
while providing accountability of the integrated relationships between the DCS stakeholder,
TAY learner, and organizational paradigm. Clarifying the overlapping responsibilities of each
stakeholder reinforces and endorses an academic team effort that suggests links between
performance goals and innate interests of the relevant constituency while utilizing cognitive
science to minimize performance barriers (Clark & Estes, 2008). Diligent research grounded on
data-driven instructional and psychological methods will help achieve contextual “equitable
education [and] . . . resource allocation” (Duncan-Andrade, 2007, p. 3).
TAY Autonomy
TAY emancipation complemented with sustainable academic and social skills for college
and career readiness is a complicated transition with numerous social, emotional, and
psychological adversities (Jones & Gragg, 2012). Addressing the low graduation rate of 56%
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
21
among California’s TAY population living in diverse foster residential care is an ethical concern
connected to cognitive, motivational, and systemic analysis (Keller et al., 2010). According to
Courtney et al. (2018), pre-AB12 and post-AB12 postsecondary education enrollment by age 21
improved (p < .01) from 43.7% (n = 10,218) to 46.7% (n = 3,478). However, less than 50% of
the total TAY sample population (N = 13,696) is pursuing post-high school education. These
numbers do not account for the specific foster-care residential environments (e.g., long-term,
STRTP, and medical facilities) that influence high school graduation and post-secondary
education plans. Furthermore, measuring persistence beyond the first two years of college
reduced the total research sample by more than half (N = 6,094), posting a marginal increase
from 49.4% pre-AB12 (n = 4,469) to (50.1% ) post-AB12 (n = 1,625) (Courtney et al. 2018). To
faithfully analyze and provide viable inference to pre and post-AB12 statistics, tracking students’
educational stability from high-school diploma and beyond, requires an accountability of the
type and consistency of foster-care received (NYTD, 2020).
Reinforcing the social accountability to promote affective research and funding to ensure
provisional TAY resources (Stott, 2012), programs like California Youth Connection (2020)
address local policy that heightens awareness and access to Independent Living Programs
available but often not accessed (Brown & Wilderson, 2010). The California Legislative
Counsel’s Digest (2019) addresses legislation, services, and benefits in place to protect TAY
from life-altering choices while seeking independence: pregnancy, homelessness, prostitution,
incarceration. For example, according to the County Welfare Director's Association of California
(CWDAC) (2020), the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children (CSEC) is directly
correlated with TAY failed or instable foster-care resources. CSEC statistics reiterate Title IV-E
section 477 findings that TAY revert to homelessness or rely on homeless shelters for residential
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
22
services (CWDAC, 2020; OJJDP, 2020). CSEC states that TAY become vulnerable to criminal
activity (i.e., prostitution) to gain stability and consistency regarding food, shelter, clothing,
family, safety, acceptance, and approval (CWDAC, 2020; OJJDP, 2020). This creates a
dichotomy between the consistency or inconsistency of basic necessities while justifying a
lifestyle that often is reminiscent of previous abuse prior to CSEC status (Klasey & Brantley-
Harris, 2020). In 2018, 424,066 children were reported missing with a correlated ratio of one out
of seven children at risk to become a CSEC victim (CWDAC, 2020).
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) (2020) states
approximately 100,000 U.S. children are exploited for prostitution every year, mostly female,
with an average age of 15. According to Arizona State University’s Office of Sex Trafficking
Intervention Research (STIR), human sex trafficking is a 9.8 billion dollar industry that targets
TAY females with specific attributes: abusive histories, runaways, gang membership, juvenile
justice offenders, and foster care/group home children (Bayless & Roe-Sepowitz, 2018).
According to a six-year study from STIR, California ranks highest among arrests of sex
traffickers of minors at 15.8 % (Roe-Sepowitz, Gallagher, Hogan, Ward, Denecour, Bracy,
2017). California is “one of the nation's top destination states for trafficking human beings”
(State of California Department of Justice 2020, p. 1) due to population size and national border.
In 2012, Los Angeles County’s criminal sex-trafficking arrests were among the highest
in the country, impacting, mostly, TAY females with detrimental ramifications of
criminalization: incarceration, criminal records, and residential displacement (e.g., Child
Protective Services) (County of Los Angeles, 2020). In 2017, the California legislature passed
SB 1322, decriminalizing prostitution among minors to reduce consequential socio-cultural
stigmas and barriers (e.g., employment) impeding self-sufficiency (County of Los Angeles,
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
23
2020). The Los Angeles Country Probations Department (LACPD) research states that empirical
findings suggest that two common CSEC factors persisted: past trauma/abuse and foster-care
status (as cited in County of Los Angeles, 2020). Additionally, Brantley (2020), CSEC
Instructional Expert working with the LACPD, stated initial research indicated 70-90% of CSEC
victims were categorized as foster-care TAY females living in STRTP residential group homes
(Brantley, 2020, as cited in County of Los Angeles, 2020). This research design investigates the
KMO factors that impede the value of TAY resources leading toward independence. The context
of this study considers the relevant TAY social and emotional ramifications as a teleological
argument while considering an epistemological framework fused with motivational and social-
cultural contingencies (Chomsky, 1965).
“Valence is crucial for action; we need it in order to decide what to do and to follow
through and take action” (Grim, 2013, p. 14). The correlation of amended legislation and
available resources with the efficacy and production of justifiable achievement reinforces
ethical accountability affecting the individual and society (Keller et al., 2010; Stott &
Gustavsson, 2010; Stringer et al., 2019). Research that allows for an itemized subgrouping of
categories concerning the type of residence and correlation with historical abuse, gender,
age, and ethnicity is needed for localized alignment of resources to create oversight and
sustainability for proper implementation (NYTD, 2020; Stringer et al., 2019). Localizing
research findings with the design for effective implementation strategies to promote TAY
independence is justified from state and national statistics; however, applying theory to
practice for systemic change is validated with shared attributes (i.e., homogeneity) for
generalizable purposes (McEwan & McEwan, 2003). Investigating the objective numbers
related to a specific research sample of TAY females in group homes in Southern California
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
24
allows for reasonable organizational improvements (Rueda, 2011), cohesive, data-driven
cognitive theories (Ambrose, Bridges, DiPietro, Lovett, & Norman, 2010), and accessible
psychological therapies for visible, palpable growth (Myers, 2004).
Personalized Learning
Although the personalized learning of the individual is a part of the larger professional
development design, addressing the needs and accommodations of the individual learner within
the contextual whole is an inferred assumption. The varied learner and KMO factors related to
the personalized experience is circumstantially understood within the context of learning. The
TAY female learner requires a latitude of understanding and adjustments to minimize cognitive
distractions and maximize motivational variables. As the TAY learner mimics the DCS
stakeholder responding to professional development techniques, individualized catering to the
differentiated needs of the learner (i.e., DCS or TAY) is adjusted within the broader professional
design. Consequently, it becomes purposeful to discuss the personalized learning strategies
within the perspective of the general professional development design while articulating the
justification for the differentiated, personalized instruction.
Definitions of Personalized Learning
Personalized learning is the anticipation and accommodation of KMO variables of the
individual learner (Clark & Estes, 2008). A personalized learning environment places the
educator as facilitator while integrating the learner into the development of goal-setting, learning
objectives, performance mastery, personal and collaborative feedback, self-regulation strategies,
and metacognitive schema (Rueda, 2011). For the TAY learner, the personalized learning model
is designed to reinforce sustainable, autonomous skills that build confidence, self-efficacy,
performance, and mastery goal authorship (Senko et al., 2011). According to Zmuda, Ullman, &
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
25
Curtis (2015), personalized learning reinforces the learner to heuristically define, shape, and
practice learning opportunities in an exploratory manner, accommodating the differentiated
KMO needs not addressed in a traditional curriculum. Discovery-based, self-directed learning
correlated to the learner’s personalized goal values strengthens stakeholder buy-in while
addressing KMO barriers. The DCS stakeholder acts as coach while facilitating learning
direction through modeling and feedback revised with KMO learner personalization (Zmuda et.
al, 2015) to meet the challenge level while promoting the learner’s interests and goal orientations
(CCSD, 2016). Pane, Steiner, Baird, & Hamilton (2015) state that personalized learning is when
a “tailor[ed] instructional environment–what, when, how and where students learn–address[es]
the individual needs, skills and interests of each student” (p. 1).
Dr. Kenneth Yates (2017), professor at the Rossier School of Education at the University
of Southern California, described personal learning instruction as the implementation of “three
elements that you can’t see in real-time: students’ cognitive readiness to learn, their emotional
readiness to learn, and their prior knowledge, which will affect how much cognitive load they
may be under when trying to learn something new” (p. 3, as cited in Herold, 2017). CTS’ DCS
stakeholder work in a delicate, personalized learning environment requiring adaptable and varied
KMO strategies to authenticate and sustain a dynamically motivating and effective educational
context.
Complex and diverse KMO instructional variables of the TAY learner are focused on
sponsoring life-long, intrinsic value indicative of high school graduation and college and career
readiness skills for autonomous living (Ryan & Deci, 2000). CTS’ personalized learning
program should be research-driven to address KMO factors within a student-centered learning
environment. Personal learning opportunities, in this context, are designed to promote critical
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
26
analysis and creative thinking tailored to the specific, differentiated learner’s knowledge-based
competencies, motivational tendencies, socio-cultural and emotional factors, and self-authored
and provisional goal values.
Personalized Learning Stakeholders
The localized CTS stakeholders directly pertain to the TAY learner, DCS professional,
and organizational supervisory roles. The stability and professional responsibility direct the
primary personalized learning to the DCS stakeholder with the direct intent for TAY adoption
and practice.
DCS. As stated, the consistent access, professional mandate, and deliberate TAY
accommodations begin with the DCS related academic and social resources. Hargreaves (2006)
referred to personalized learning among the adult-mentor modeling provisional academic and
social strategies as a facilitated role functioning as an “active partner in the jointly constructed
activity of learning-and-teaching” (p. 17). Ambrose et al. (2010) emphasizes the value of expert
demonstration exhibiting proficient tactics that assimilate learning to the circumstance through
guidance and diagnostic KMO analysis. To accommodate the TAY learner in this specific
context, the DCS stakeholder will function as guides and conditional reinforcement to posit skills
related to independent living opportunities (e.g., self-efficacy, confidence, and self-regulation)
(Ambrose et al. 2010; Rueda, 2011).
TAY Learner. The Gap Analysis’ primary objective is to transfer KMO strategies from
the chosen stakeholder (i.e., DCS) intentionally, strategically, and permanently to the TAY
learner for academic, social, and emotional emancipation. A personalized learning context places
the learner in eventual sole ownership, volitionally practicing, refining, and utilizing KMO
strategies reinforced from mentor facilitation (Kallick & Zmuda, 2017).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
27
Organizational Supervisory Roles. Organizational management reinforcing structured
accountability of provisional TAY resources is not exempt from a certain level of KMO
competency related to theoretical cognitive, emotional, and organizational theories. The
supervisory roles exist linked to stakeholder motivation and organizational mission objectives.
Maintaining content, consistent and stable employment for the provisional DCS mentor is
foundational for coherent and integrated implementation of KMO policies. According to
Rickabaugh (2016), reinforcing organizational objectives by anticipating the stakeholders’
personal, educational KMO needs for task analysis transfer is inherently connected to self-
regulation and intrinsic value (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Leadership is responsible for the clarity of
mission objectives aligned and reinforced with the fidelity of germane resources, mainly applied
to the personalized learning environment (Foster, George, Jenkins, Moyer, Williams, 2016;
Rickabaugh, 2016). The viability and integration of a successful and efficacious personalized
learning culture hinges on the organizational leadership’s accountability to fundamentally infuse,
inspire, and sponsor a performance and intrinsic working experience (Senko et al., 2011).
Personalized Learning Implications
The DCS stakeholder that transitions from theoretical KMO strategies to conceptual and
transferable skills for TAY attainment and utility must be aware of personalized KMO strengths
and weaknesses. The DCS stakeholder's methodology is reinforced through independent practice
and differentiated revision while facilitating knowledge barriers and motivational challenges for
TAY application. The “teacher” functions as “co-learner” with an initial learning curve of
awareness of concrete and tangible KMO schema built to instruct the TAY learner while
simultaneously applying personal metacognitive modifications (Hargreaves, 2006). As stated, the
DCS stakeholder functions as teacher and learner while practicing continually refined cognitive,
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
28
pedagogical, and motivational strategies adopted and revised within the personalized learning
context by the instructor and TAY consumer (AlShammari, 2011; Marzano, 2007). The
personalized learning experience is practiced independently and with liberal adjustments for the
educator and learner to maximize performance gains. Within the personally revised refinement
of learned strategies, the differentiated application of KMO approaches for TAY transfer is
adjusted for the varied acquisition factors (Ambrose et al., 2010). However, it is in the initial
professional development delivery that the stakeholders assimilate from learner to instructor to
mentor. A research-based, critical perspective of instructional design development that
anticipates cognitive science, pedagogical strategies, and motivational theories is contextualized
within the dissemination of content and reception of the learner (Foster et al., 2016; Marzano,
2007; Rickabaugh, 2016).
Professional Development/Professional Learning
Differing pedagogical philosophies or worldviews dictate the denotative and connotative
implications of the term professional “development.” According to Labone and Long (2016), the
constructivist approach of the term “learning” indicates the active engagement of the nominative
rather than the accusative suggestion of a passive development. The inference is that effective
and durable professional development requires active, engaged learning from the stakeholder
focused on self-regulation, resilience, and personal obligation (Clark & Estes, 2008; Labone &
Long, 2016). The deliberated active engagement from the learner mirrors learning behavior that
accommodates performance and mastery goal orientations that are valuable for modeling and
transfer to developing stakeholders (i.e., TAY learners) (Senko et al., 2011; Yough & Anderman,
2010). Pedagogical instruction that is varied and differentiated to address all learners anticipates
cognitive factors influenced by empirical interaction with the content (Vogel-Walcutt, Gebrim,
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
29
Bowers, Carper, & Nicholson, 2011). Efficiency of learning that is highly interactive between
participant and environment nurtures “constructive” learning opportunities yielding productive,
pragmatic, and long-term, synthetic application of the content and related skill/s (Vogel-Walcutt
et al., 2011, p. 139). Learning acquisition (i.e., content and skill) suggests a requirement that
utilizes expert guidance that directs the learner to proficiently and critically access the objective
for long-term utility (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). As the learner interacts with the
content, expectancy, utility and attainment are enhanced due to the analytical comprehension
reinforced by an immersive, participatory learning environment that anticipates cognitive
limitations (Alferi, Brooks, Aldrich, & Tenenbaum, 2011). Instructional design that
accommodates data-driven techniques that are interwoven with the learner’s cognitive
“architecture,” minimizes cognitive barriers that impede efficiency and retention (Schmidt,
Loyens, van Gog., Pass, 2007, p. 93).
Professional Learning Engagement
According to Darling-Hammond et al. (2009), effective and active professional
development learning that maximizes stakeholder integration and learner (i.e., TAY) transfer
yielding gains in performance and mastery objectives is centered around heuristic, stakeholder
inquiry. Designing accessible and intuitive professional learning that is proficient and
differentiated requires an expository, heightened awareness of research concerning cognitive
processing, comprehension and integration of motivational theories, and data-driven instructional
practices (Labone & Long, 2016). Research indicates varied attributes related to KMO factors
necessary for professional learning to be dynamic, relevant, progressive, and transferable:
knowledge domains related to content and instructional design (Clark, Yates, Early, & Moulton,
2010); discovery-based and heuristic engagement (Kirschner, Kirschner, & Paas, 2006);
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
30
objective pedagogical strategies (Rueda, 2011), expert-to-novice modeling for automaticity
(Schunn & Nelson, 2006); expert and peer constructive feedback (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda,
2011); collaborative facilitation (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011); and cohesive alignment to
stakeholder or organizational directives (Labone & Long, 2016). Reeves (2010) states that
sustainable professional learning is rigorous, consistent, differentiated, relevant, reflective, and
adaptable. The effectiveness of the professional learning approach is intimately reliant on a
research-driven instructional design that accommodates each KMO domain relevant to the
stakeholder.
An analysis of KMO factors will identify and contextualize the causes needed to
intrinsically procure learner engagement (Ryan & Deci, 2000). KMO components will clarify the
relationship between learning, motivation, and engagement through the filters of cognitive,
motivational, pedagogical, and organizational considerations (Rueda, 2011). An account of the
audience is paramount to the fidelity of any program or intervention. Defining the context,
correlates the audience’s temperament, perspectives, prior-knowledge, socio-cultural and
emotional concerns, and tangible goal orientations (Ambrose et al., 2010; Senko et al., 2011).
The fidelity of promoting these variables is diminished without initial, proactive engagement that
is “. . . goal-oriented, flexible, constructive, persistent, and focused . . . with the social
interactions and physical environments” (Furrer & Skinner, 2003, p. 149) related to behavioral
and affective domains (Rueda, 2011).
Engagement is generalized by concrete effects measured formatively or summatively
within a curriculum. Timperley (2008) reports on a meta-analysis of 98 professional learning
programs that measured effectiveness, intrinsic value, and dynamic engagement affecting
learning transfer and organizational objectives (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The findings of this
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
31
international study indicate that professional learning with high, transferable engagement to
performance and mastery level gains (Senko et al., 2011) affecting learner involvement and
intrinsic adoption are inherently tied to the instructional design that accommodates (e.g.,
differentiated: flexible, focused, and dynamic) the learner’s KMO considerations (Ryan & Deci,
2000; Timperley, 2008).
According to Riley (2017), engaged and proactive professional learning is defined by
factors that manifest and support autonomous learning, acumen or dexterity, pragmatic
application, and synthetic relevance. A professional learning approach that engages the audience
(i.e., DCS stakeholder) for personal and professional transference (i.e., TAY learner) addresses
the KMO question of “why” before establishing and relying on the ‘what’ (Tomlinson, 2017). As
stated, engagement is the outward manifestation of individualized and segmented KMO
strategies affecting the learner (Ambrose et al. 2010). Professional learning and learner
acceptance are measured by the sustainability and practical implementation of reinforced
strategies. Ambrose et al. (2010) emphasize the proficiency of “time” invested and building
collaborative resources by feedback, critique, accountability, and consistent revision to protect
learner engagement. Wilson and Berne (1999) state that “ . . . teacher learning ought not to be
bound and delivered but rather activated” (p. 194). The fidelity of engagement committed to
personalized learning in the broader professional development is committed to a persistent
adaptation of learner-centered content that reinforces inherent talents, interests, and application
filtered and extracted via an accurate analysis of KMO aspects (Ambrose et al., 2010).
Professional Learning Differentiation
Engagement is tailored to the holistic professional learning objective/s and to the
individual learner’s extrinsic and intrinsic application of interest and value related to KMO
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
32
aspects (Rueda, 2011; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Identifying cognitive factors impeding content
knowledge and procedural understanding while anticipating motivational relationships is
indicative of a differentiated instructional design (Ambrose et al., 2010; Rueda, 2011). Goddard,
Hannon, Peterson, and Temperley (2014) report on a meta-analysis of 50 varied professional
learning programs focused on differentiated instructional techniques related to value, interest,
and engagement of the learner. Results suggest that the necessary KMO accommodations
correlate to teacher as learner prior-knowledge, varied expertise, and occupational goal values
(e.g., certification categories) (Goddard et al., 2014). These findings reiterate the need to clearly
and carefully articulate the personalized learning experience within the professional learning
curriculum if engagement, interest, and value are to be accessed by all learner-centered
stakeholder. The commitment to engaging, differentiated, and interesting strategies is effectual in
fostering extrinsic and intrinsic value (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Bretzmann (2015) state, “Wherever
teachers start, the process should honor it . . . . we cannot and should not paint our whole staff
with broad strokes” (pp. 14-15). Addressing engagement is not independent of KMO challenges
and not successful without differentiated accommodation embedded in KMO variables.
Professional Learning Choice
Consideration for the audience or designated learner stakeholder is an intelligent and
intentional use of anticipatory and accommodating strategies that promote differentiated
engagement, interest, value, and preferential choice (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Goddard et
al., 2014; Howland & Wedman, 2004). Cultivating a hybrid instructional design where the
stakeholder is afforded opportunities for the teacher to filter instruction through the guise and
lens of instructor and learner (teacher-learner), accommodates a scaffolded instructional
approach capitalizing on engagement, motivational factors, and differentiated, personalized
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
33
learning (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Goddard et al., 2014). Advancing self-efficacy and
determination are motivational factors assumed foundational to teacher and learner engagement.
Lending a voice and validating tailor-shaped instructional techniques is paramount to crafting
distinctive motivational orientations that amplify performance and mastery goal values (Senko et
al. 2011). Obliging the duality of a teacher-learner perspective constructs personal and
professional empowerment while “lower[ing] . . . defensive barriers [that] broaden . . .
educational horizons, giv[ing] . . . a sense of pride, ownership, and responsibility” (Dutt, as cited
in Wells, 2014, p.489).
Advocating for a teacher-learner instructional design places instructor as facilitator and
learner as practicing agent in charge of the customization of knowledge and motivational
strategies related to content delivery and cognitive acquisition (Patall, Pituch, Steingut, Vasquez,
Yates, & Kennedy, 2019). Promoting the freedom of teacher-learner instructional ownership
consequentially produces an individualistic, authentic, and adaptable personal and professional
learning environment. Stefanou, Perencevich, DiCinto, and Turner (2004) assert that learners
acting as autonomous practitioners of tailored stratagem display palpable ownership, creativity,
ingenuity, and responsibility regarding achievement and performance objectives. Rickabaugh
(2004) points out the direct correlation with effort and commitment. The teacher-learner
functioning as instructional architect endorses a personalized, differentiated, and refined
approach to learning (Stefanou et al., 2004). Teacher-learner stakeholder freedom takes
advantage of the innate, intrinsic value resulting in high interest, engagement, choice, and self-
efficacy (Senko et al. 2011). CTS’ DCS constituents offer a rich, diverse, and personalized
expertise addressing independent and overlapping KMO domains. The TAY learner will benefit
from collaborative DCS input to drive CTS’ the funding and resourcing of TAY supports.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
34
Professional Learning Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy is defined as “people’s judgements of their capabilities to organize and
execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances” (Bandura, 1986, p.
391). Bandura suggested that if self-efficacy is well articulated and efficiently procured,
perseverance and diligence counteract moments of inevitable cognitive obstructions (1986).
CTS’ DCS stakeholder as teacher-learner, within the performance learning design, acts as a
requisite instrument or vehicle that fashions self-efficient schema within knowledge and
motivational methodology. Timperley, Annan, & Robinson (2009) state that the teacher-learner
acts as a measured facilitator practicing and emulating self-efficient behavior to be mimicked
and adopted by the student-learner (i.e., TAY). Practicing self-efficient circumvention of
complex learning obstacles reinforces self-confidence and intrinsic value, converting feelings of
frustration, incompetence, or skill into challenges of perseverance, diligence, resiliency, and
ability (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Timperley and Alton-Lee (2008) expounded on the learner’s self-efficacy, stating that the
teacher-learner needs an instructional environment that integrates and practices facilitation of
data-driven strategies shaped by cognitive and motivational factors. A provisional learning
context that is sensitive to “continued engagement, . . . tak[ing] responsibility for identified
problems with student outcomes . . . with the belief [of] . . . the capability to solve them” exhibits
a learning environment that promotes and strengthens attitudes of relevant self-efficacy
(Timperley & Alton-Lee, 2008, p. 340).
Professional Learning Goals
The effect of a teacher-learner instructional design with individualized, high-interest, and
preferential ownership is the propagation of corresponding goal values. A professional learning
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
35
paradigm that articulates clear and relevant objectives is pertinent in identifying learning
impediments and transferable learning solutions. The teacher-learner instructional ownership
manifests into the self-efficient role of instructional designer that shapes, directs, and revises
strategies cognizant of knowledge and motivational dynamics. The role of self-efficacy related to
the personal and organizational goal values promotes the depth and authenticity of goal
orientation adoption and integration that shapes effort, interest, value, and tenacity (Bandura,
1986). Fostering opportunities of self-efficacy into the professional learning instructional design
centers on the collective embracing of values and objectives that stimulate collaborative learning.
According to Burbank and Kauchak (2003), “Effective teaming is highly dependent upon
common project goals among team members” (p. 513). Shared organizational goals reinforced
by viable resources influence larger professional learning objectives while refining and directing
personalized goal orientations. Alignment of professional objectives that influence personalized
goal values is hindered by a disconnect between perceived instructional goals between instructor
and learner.
In CTS’ context, the DCS stakeholder that functions as a teacher-learner for eventual
TAY learner transfer will benefit from strategies that promote shared learning targets. According
to Wilson and Berne (1999), research indicates that there exists a dichotomy between the goal
values of the instructor and learner. The DCS stakeholder strategies will benefit from sharing the
teacher-learner experience with the student-learner education. To articulate the vulnerability of
content and strategy deficiencies, the goal values of the DCS stakeholder will be closer aligned
to the learner-centered values. A consistent and transparent articulation of learning transfer
objectives will promote collegiality and shared mission goals that harmoniously penetrate and
align organizational, DCS, and TAY learner values.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
36
Knowledge Factors
The relationship of interest and value is learner-focused and attention or engagement-
driven (Ambrose et al., 2010; Rueda, 2011). Professional learning with personalized instruction
that adheres to a differentiated learner-centered instructional design is committed to higher
taxonomical applications of application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation—addressing content
purpose and utility (Senko et al., 2011). Addressing the “why” presupposes lower knowledge and
comprehension domains. Deliberated cognitive acquisition often is circumvented by lower
taxonomy assumptions that marginalize a proportion of stakeholder learners. A KMO approach
aids in the proficiency and retention of personalized and transferable content acquisition by
tailoring strategies to the individual. A strategic approach that categorizes and contextualizes
“knowledge domains” related to personalized learning, addresses the autonomous needs of the
learner while practicing self-directed, self-regulated, and active-learning from the stakeholder
(i.e., DCS) for application and transfer (i.e., TAY independence) (Ambrose et al., 2010; Rueda,
2011). Careful attention and integration of stimuli with inherent or projected relevance and
purpose promote the personalized learning process within the general learning context.
“Learning is a change in knowledge attributable to experience” (Mayer, 2011, p. 391).
Cognitive science addresses the problem of “Knowledge” with categorical grouping. Mayer
articulates that “Declarative Knowledge” is best articulated by categorizing lower taxonomy
levels into expository levels of knowledge and comprehension (i.e., “what” content).
“Procedural Knowledge” focuses on cognitive acquisition related to performance and protocol
(“how” and “when” content) (Mayer, 2011). According to Ambrose et al. (2010), procedural
knowledge addresses the cognitive acquisition of theory, methodology, process, and stylistic
approach. Mayer (20110) discusses metacognitive schema—the third domain of knowledge
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
37
acquisition. Addressing the declarative “what” or procedural “how and when” predicates the
calculated access to declarative and procedural content with a “metacognitive” awareness of
individualized self-regulatory schema interacting and mitigating contextual KMO factors
(Mayer, 2011). Professional learning that personalizes the learner’s cognitive acquisition is
complemented by the intent facilitation of the stakeholder’s heightened awareness of qualifying
KMO influences. The stakeholder’s parsing and intentional activation of knowledge domains
address learning gaps with differentiated cognitive strategies shaped by exemplar facilitation
with a mindfulness of the developing learner. Metacognitive knowledge validates the license to
practice and refine learner initiated cognitive schema with the intent of continuous adaptation
and revision, maximizing content resourcefully and efficiently (Ambrose et al., 2010).
Temperley and Alton-Lee (2008) address the DCS-learner’s (i.e., DCS) knowledge
approach driven by a deliberate metacognitive awareness. Advantageously, accessing and
utilizing prior knowledge, experience, and socio-cultural nuances for knowledge access and
transfer are reliant on the DCS’ acquaintance of knowledge limitations and appropriate
strategies. The teacher-learner’s discriminating understanding of appropriate and timely tactics
(i.e., KMO) is integral to shaping the objective and execution of the instructional design for
student-learner transfer (Temperley & Alton-Lee, 2008). Illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2. The Black Boxes of Teacher and Student Learning

Source: Reframing teacher professional learning: An alternative policy approach to strengthening valued outcomes for
diverse learners. (Timperley & Alton-Lee, 2008; Review of Research in Education).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
38

Professional learning curricula accessing KMO factors related to the targeted DCS
stakeholder can be evaluated by an initial analysis of itemized, categorical knowledge domains
that segment and delineate between declarative, procedural, and metacognitive taxonomy
(Rueda, 2011). A DCS-centered stakeholder that generates extrinsic and intrinsic value will
access knowledge at different levels with differing competencies (Ryan & Deci, 2000). A
professional learning design that promotes self-regulation strategies is at the core of the
stakeholder taking eventual ownership of the learning process (Ambrose et al., 2010). A
professional learning program that integrates the development of schema or strategies to monitor
progress and decipher between declarative, procedural, and metacognitive factors is the ultimate
objective for long-term, systemic change and progress affecting the learner and organizational
strategies (Ambrose et al., 2010). Creating lifelong learners is indicative of self-regulation,
performance driven goals, and intrinsic motivation that affect the efficacy of professional
learning to improve the stakeholder’s knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
(Ambrose et al., 2010; Rueda, 2011).
Declarative Knowledge
Built into the DCS stakeholder KMO professional learning “intervention,” the targeted
learner will be varied in prior knowledge and goal orientations (Senko et al., 2011). Offering
valid differentiation embedded in the prescribed KMO strategies, it is imperative to anticipate
barriers of knowledge due to declarative comprehension (Rueda, 2011). As the DCS stakeholder
improves within the professional learning module/s, defining declarative knowledge that is
theoretical versus conceptual necessitates how the learner synthesizes new knowledge with prior
experience (Ambrose et al., 2010). Specifically, the DCS as stakeholder does not typically
possess the theoretical knowledge of pedagogical strategies or expertise in cognitive science to
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
39
provide conceptually relevant and impactful instructional design for the TAY learner. Building
the professional learning that orientates the stakeholder with theoretical KMO strategies and
research with the design of conceptual application, supports the personal adoption and buy-in of
the organizational goal (i.e., CTS) while shaping the stakeholder’s personal goal values. Lastly,
the DCS stakeholder must be introduced and instructed to eventually integrate application of
quantitative and qualitative measurements that account for motivation, content application, self-
regulation skills, self-confidence, and performance and mastery orientations (Ambrose et al.,
2010; Senko et al., 2011). If the professional learning framework is designed to foster the
ownership and self-efficacy for lifelong, intrinsic learning, spending time to incrementally teach
theory, jargon, factual, and conceptual terminology, and self-regulatory skills (Ambrose et al.,
2010; Ryan & Deci, 2000) is paramount for the DCS stakeholder to successfully model behavior
and proficient performance strategies with a high-rate of TAY transfer to the TAY learner.
Monitoring declarative knowledge, the initial design of the professional learning
intervention should anticipate a deficiency in the stakeholder’s ability to reference cognitive
processing concerning knowledge types and theoretical instruction designed to identify and
minimize cognitive barriers impacting social and academic growth (Senko et al., 2011). The
stakeholder will possess a deficit of the theoretical purpose and intended measurement indicative
of each knowledge category. For example, the DCS will need clarification of effective
intervention strategies of higher taxonomy, ramifications of cognitive attrition and cognitive
contingencies, knowledge concerning categories/classification of goal orientations related to
motivation (e.g., attainment, utility, performance, and mastery), implications of the TAY
graduation scoring of skill-based level descriptors (e.g., CAASP), and related measurements for
grade-level skills and college-readiness (Senko et al., 2011). Lastly, the professional learning
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
40
design needs to continually clarify and reinforce the interrelationship among the intended
intervention strategies, regular content, and skills to be developed and assessed formally and
informally (i.e., summative and formative) (Ambrose et al., 2010).
For the DCS stakeholder, the professional learning content related to concepts and
standards-based performance measurements will need to be scaffolded for various forms of
annotative strategies. If the stakeholder, functioning as an exemplary educational resource and
accountable motivational influence, is expected to model specific subjective and objective
instructional strategies reinforcing analytical, synthetic, and evaluative applications, declarative
knowledge gaps measured in standards-based high school graduation assessments will need to be
reinforced for a high rate of skill transfer to the TAY learner. For example, the DCS stakeholder
will most likely lack proficiency in accessing standards-based content specific to a learning
domain. If the TAY learner is addressed with a variety of literary or rhetorical devices (e.g.,
persona, audience, action, and purpose to specific literary devices utilized to achieve author’s or
passage intent) that are measured in the standards-based curriculum content, implementing an
instructional intervention addressing declarative knowledge deficiencies is pertinent. If the
stakeholder can be taught to identify and uncover meaning and implications related to the
content, reinforcing annotative strategies and teaching expository, declarative knowledge related
to learning theory within the learning intervention, bridges the theoretical knowledge gap
(Rueda, 2011) for eventual TAY transfer and procedural implementation.
Procedural Knowledge
As it relates to declarative knowledge gaps impacting competency, proficiency, and self-
efficacy, the DCS stakeholder that is limited in content knowledge and is not skilled in
objectively identifying and monitoring cognitive barriers and content performance gaps will also
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
41
be deficient in procedural knowledge (Rueda, 2011). As a consequence of declarative
knowledge limitations, the DCS stakeholder struggles to identify and construct applicable
meaning used to show both applied practical and conceptual understanding (Clark & Estes,
2008). Learners, whether the DCS or TAY stakeholder, often do not know how to read, annotate,
synthesize, and produce an effective product based on specifically measured standards or aligned
rubrics designed to be quantified for accountability. For example, a poetry genre unit requires
complex analysis abilities at the highest levels of cognitive taxonomy. A DCS stakeholder with
the most consistent and practical access to the TAY learner will need to strategically integrate
personalized instructional and learning modeling within the professional learning design to
motivate and provide direct accountability for the TAY stakeholder pursuing high school
graduation and beyond. Remembering the standards-based content is designed for academic
performance as well as independent college and career readiness skills, complex content (e.g.,
poetry, statistics, and physics) that frustrates the stakeholder at the declarative level results in
cognitive attrition impacting procedural and metacognitive domains. The stakeholders may not
have to be competent in the specific academic skill, but they will need to be able to identify
between declarative, procedural, and metacognitive factors (Clark & Estes, 2008). Specifically,
the skills involved with the analysis of “verse” related materials intentionally engage procedural
understanding to uncover literary and rhetorical devices strategically incorporated to achieve the
author’s purpose.
As stated in declarative assumptions, DCS stakeholders do not typically have the
procedural knowledge of the techniques to identify persona, audience, action, and the purpose of
the content. These limitations frustrate the translation of the content, impeding synthetic and
evaluative understanding for transfer to the TAY learner. Additionally, the stakeholders are not
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
42
often skilled in procedural steps necessary to uncover the author’s intent and annotative
strategies that are used to focus on the content semantics and syntax. The professional and
personalized instructional approach will need to identify limitations to be declarative, procedural,
or both to competently guide or model the objective and subjective responses (Clark & Estes,
2008) measured in prose and verse. To validate procedural knowledge gaps, the DCS stakeholder
will need opportunities within the learning instruction to discover the clarification between
declarative and procedural knowledge limitations and strategies to circumvent academic or
motivational barriers (Rueda, 2011) of the TAY learner.
Metacognitive Knowledge
Lifelong learning proposes a continual revision of the stakeholders’ learning process
(Ambrose et al., 2010). A metacognitive critique that replaces the stakeholder or learner as
personal facilitator is inherent with effective self-regulation. As stated in professional learning,
the effectual outcome of a personalized self-efficacy is a product of refined metacognitive
strategies impacting sustainable ownership, effort, responsibility, and goal orientations (Senko et
al., 2011; Ryan & Deci, 2000). The DCS stakeholder reinforces the TAY learner with the
specific intent of independent sustainability measured by high school graduation and college and
career readiness skills. Fostering ownership, self-regulation, and resilience indicative of
metacognitive facilitation (Ambrose et al. 2010), metacognitive awareness integrated into the
professional and personalized learning intention reinforces deliberate strategies that strengthen
declarative and procedural knowledge gaps with differentiated customization of personalized
schema (Rueda, 2011) built for the DCS stakeholder and TAY learner. Considering the poetry
genre example, limitations in metacognitive strategies prevent the stakeholder from discovering
and reflecting on the author’s meaning or objective purpose in limited response assessments. As
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
43
the stakeholder improves in identifying and building metacognitive schema, self-regulation of
goals, interest, judgments, or stereotypes affecting individual declarative or procedural
understanding will act as a filter, minimizing cognitive barriers (Rueda, 2011).
A professional learning design that does not prepare the stakeholders to properly self-
regulate will be limited in approach and viability to the specific content for proper assessment,
application, or purposeful correlation of related high school or college and career-related success.
Integrating metacognitive self-regulation helps to identify tools and strategies that account for
incremental growth, articulating a “proximal development” (Dunn & Lantolf, 2008, p. 1) that is
realistic and attainable (Senko et al., 2011; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Rueda, 2011). Metacognitive
awareness facilitates the identification of missed factual and conceptual content represented in
declarative or procedural utility (Ambrose et al. 2010). Awareness of learning contexts dictates
schema used to achieve objectives specific to the environment. Winne (2010) states that the
implementation of self-regulated strategies is “conditional” to the context that directs and frames
goal-orientation/s (p. 268). “Metacognitive processes” within the specific context adapt and
redirect approaches to achieve results with greater efficacy and proficiency (Stankov &
Kleitman, 2014, p. 120). Consequently, aligning the learning context to revised strategies relies
on the “clarity and specificity” of the syntax framing the semantics of the learning objective/s for
optimal operationalization (Dinsmore, Alexander, & Loughlin, 2008, p. 392).
Cognitive Load Theory. Itemizing cognitive processing between procedural,
declarative, and metacognitive factors (Rueda, 2011) within research designs should
accommodate the limitations of cognitive processing (Kirschner et al., 2006). Cognitive attrition
suggests an overloading of information that requires the learner to initiate metacognitive
awareness that practices self-regulatory adaptation leading to self-advocacy, personal ownership
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
44
(e.g., motivational values), and strategic metacognitive schema (Ambrose et al., 2010). Research
should accommodate for Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) that requires a scaffolding of the content
delivery (Kirschner et al., 2006). A strategic segmenting of content delivery into declarative or
procedural elements with paced delivery aids in accommodating the cognitive limitations of the
learner (Ambrose et al., 2010).
Cognitive overloading can be circumvented when aligned to specific goal orientations
(Kirschner et al., 2006). Instructional designs that deal with complex content and motivational or
cognitive challenges can strategically synthesize content, avoiding redundancy and predicting
“split-attention” and varied learning “modalities” factors (Kirschner et al., 2006, p. 83). Beyond
the instructional design, a learner that practices the metacognitive awareness for self-regulation
can differentiate between levels of comprehension while self-observing cognitive health
(Kirschner et al., 2006). Creating a conducive environment and scaffolded assessments will
endorse the development of metacognitive skills to process the content while monitoring
distractions or fatigue that impact performance and mastery attainment (Kirschner et al., 2006;
Senko et. al., 2011). Pedagogical elements and research designs must be conscientious to
decrease extraneous cognitive load that heavily influences the fidelity of goal orientations
(Kirschner et al., 2006). Once the stakeholder takes accountability of metacognitive influences
impeding cognitive processing, the learner’s goal values turn toward self-efficacy, leading to
intrinsic learning (Kirschner, et al., 2006). Guided CLT instruction streamlined for proficient and
dynamic instruction relies on tangible, empirical competence with itemized procedures with the
intent of the learner’s automaticity or expertise (Clark, 2012). Feldon (2006) states that expertise
is connotatively associated with the “outperform[ance] of non-experts” related to targeted
objectives (p. 1); however, clarification and viability of the specific proficiency remains
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
45
subjective in application. In addition to defining expert parameters, categorical expertise can be
visualized as a “continuum” of levels of proficiency regarding the relationship between expert to
novice that dictate the proportion of instructional guidance (Schunn & Nelson, 2006, p. 4).
Clarity and value of the expertise are dependent on the proficiency of collaboration and
the efficacy of expert direction in Cognitive Task Analysis (CTA) (Clark, Feldon, Van
Merrienboer, Yates, & Early, 2008). Targeted and dialectical questioning (i.e., expert and
novice) of the specific protocol help to clarify requirements, engage metacognitive schema, and
counteract opaque and oversimplified procedures (Clark et al., 2008). Expertise, despite the
defining subjective factors, capitalizes on a refined capability of the practitioner to automate
(Clark, 2012) tasks with a proficient carelessness that translates into a germane, modeled,
reproducible, and systematic CTA with minimal extraneous cognitive load.
Identifying impediments that contribute to mental attrition and cognitive overload are
necessary to objectively accommodate differentiated learning factors. According to Choi, van
Merrienboer, & Paas (2014), contextual physical environments dictate learning efficacy among
the content relationships between the learner and task engagement, empirically influencing the
extrinsic load. Optimization of the learning environment integrated with cognitive limitations
(e.g., WM, LTM) is a necessary accommodation to ensure a proficient instructional design able
to achieve tasks of high-complexity (Kirschner et al., 2006). Through the strategic adjustments of
learning conditions and framework used to access and implement the content, variables
impacting DCS stakeholder and TAY acquisition are identified and revised for utility,
performance, and proficiency.

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
46
Motivation Factors
Clark and Estes (2008) state, “. . . motivation gets us going, keeps us moving, and tells us
how much effort to spend” (p. 80). The professional learning design that captures the
personalized and differentiated learner approach centered on high-interest and self-efficacy is the
ideal, cultivated landscape to integrate varied motivational strategies for sustainable, transferable
growth. Motivation is centered on the concept of movement. Attaching inherent meaning to the
content or skill that the DCS stakeholder finds practical and useable is paramount for the teacher-
learner’s motivation and movement toward goal orientation and academic proficiency for TAY
transfer. As stated in the definition of a sustainable professional learning design, choice,
persistence, and mental effort represent categories or indices at the foundation of motivational
barriers (Rueda, 2011).
Choice, Persistence, and Mental Effort
Diligently considering the academic, social, and emotional ramifications of unsuccessful
TAY autonomy objectives (i.e., CSEC, unemployment, homelessness, emotional and
psychological issues, unwanted pregnancy, etc.), motivational intent and invested goal values are
shaped by the TAY learner’s integration and involvement in the societal context promoted or
limited by choice, persistence, and mental effort. Choice, whether volitional or subconscious,
focuses on the avoidance of initiating engagement of the selected task (Rueda, 2011). Persistence
is found in the etymology of standing firm with focus and intensity with forward movement.
Persistent motivational problems are the subsequent actions of choice; however, the DCS
stakeholder and the TAY learner will struggle to engage or create schema that fosters self-
efficacy and metacognitive awareness, preventing the full completion of the task (i.e., TAY
transfer) (Ambrose et al., 2010). Mental effort problems influencing motivation utilize schema
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
47
development and metacognitive awareness but often are contextually misapplied (Pajares, 2010).
The misapplication often creates barriers to fully and correctly approach and achieve competency
of the task (Rueda, 2011). The professional learning design not prepared to support the
personalized ownership of the DCS stakeholder will result in teacher-learners deficient in self-
efficacy and metacognitive strategies—experiencing frustration affecting motivation and the
development of effective schema (Pajares, 2010).
All three motivational indices are addressed and compensated for in this Gap Analysis.
The professional learning design that promotes the DCS stakeholder’s declarative, conceptual,
and procedural knowledge related to content, cognitive theories, motivational contingencies, and
pedagogical strategies supports and encourages the stakeholder’s initial choice and engagement
(Clark & Estes, 2008) for TAY assignment. Choice is addressed in the professional learning
intervention model with continual support from organizational accountability and collaborative
cohort facilitation. Persistence is addressed through the instructional design with incremental
delivery of formative and summative assessments complemented with professional learning
collaboration (Rueda, 2011). To regulate persistency that influences mental effort and often leads
to misapplication of previous knowledge or ineffective learning strategies, integrated schema and
scaffolded metacognitive strategies will be regularly practiced in the broader professional design
intervention for personalized stakeholder transfer (i.e., DCS and TAY), resulting in improved
self-regulation and facilitated learning (Pajares, 2010). Illustrated in Figure 3.
Value Orientations
Focusing on the value of the content (e.g., academic, cognitive, motivational, and
pedagogical) will foster meaning and purpose to address motivational problems concerning
choice, persistence, and mental effort (Rueda, 2011). The professional learning design will
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
48
assume all DCS stakeholders are deficient in fundamental theoretical content knowledge and
lack practical understanding of the content and standards assessed for college-readiness. As a
result, the instructional design will assume that stakeholders do not value or validate the content
and intervention objectives. A reiterated focus of the importance of measured content integrated
with the professional learning intervention will promote utility and attainment value, providing
more tangible and specific solutions to be implemented (Senko et al., 2011). For example,
assessing for value can be measured through the use of Likert scales ranking “importance,”
“value,” or “interest” in application of the instructional design content. To address an attainment
value, integrating a measurement that focuses on competency in the academic content or
intervention objectives (e.g., English analysis; high school graduation; post-high school
education) can be posed with a question about the level of importance (i.e., not at all important,
very important). CTS’ professional learning instructional design can be internalized in concrete
terms by implementing specific schemes to increase the stakeholder’s motivational values (e.g.,
quota, piece-rate, tournament, and flat-rate schemes) (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Figure 3. Three Facets of Motivational Performance

Source: Adapted from Turning research into results (Clark, R. E., & Estes, F., 2008; Charlotte, NC: Information Age).
Active Choice
Intention to pursue
goal is replaced by
action.

Persistence
Once started, we
continue in the face of
distractions
Mental Effort
People work smarter
and develop novel
solutions
Increased Performance
Increased motivation combines with
effective knowledge, skills, and work
processes to result in goal achievement
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
49
The value gap can be integrated into the professional, personalized learning design
through a formal organizational management orientation for DCS stakeholders concerning the
instructional design philosophy, purpose, and importance of assimilated measurements. Laying
the foundation through management orientation and rationale for the professional learning
process will communicate the value of the professional learning design or “campaign” (e.g.,
utility, intrinsic, attainment, etc.) (Senko et al., 2011) as it relates to the practical and long-term
importance of student self-regulation and self-advocacy (Pajares, 2010). A continued
conversation and reinforcement of the prescribed instructional design intervention will lead to
continuity and coherency of the intervention, measured objectives, and stakeholder ownership.
Through the coordination and collaboration of relevant stakeholders, the rationale of the
professional learning proposal will articulate the practicality of the formative and summative
measurements and the application of the information used for TAY transfer. Clarified rationale
will promote a discussion of the importance and utility value of the professional learning
protocol and personalized learning intent (Clark & Estes, 2008). Declaration of program
objectives will foster positive ownership and value from all stakeholders, reinforcing the
continuity of the instructional design and integrated content (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Creating a team effort with all stakeholders will increase intrinsic motivation goals (Clark
& Estes, 2008; Senko et al., 2011). The professional learning design will provide cultural energy
that will stimulate motivation and accountability, creating a “positive emotional environment”
(i.e., factor 3) (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 94). This team effort will naturally accommodate a
climate that will provide positive, detailed, and constructive feedback—a powerful influence on
the learners’ “perceptions of competence” (Rueda, 2011, p. 40). Building a team culture between
relevant stakeholders employs modeling and collaboration of strategically designed,
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
50
differentiated, and collaborative research-based strategies. Collective ownership enhances clarity
of organizational objectives while cultivating a conducive learning and work environment
affecting the culture for all constituents.
According to research, provisional “tangible incentives” (e.g., salary, recognition, gratis,
and performance goals) greatly influence interest and utility value, impacting the stakeholder’s
intrinsic motivation (Clark & Estes, 2008 p. 96; Rueda, 2011). Conversely, when the learner
achieves a utility value that is superficially applied or earned, the stakeholder assesses an
attainment value of the content that is theoretical without conceptual function (Murdock &
Anderman, 2006). CTS’ objective for long-term application and personalized transfer for all
stakeholders requires incentivization to serve the professional and personalized learning goal
orientations of the learner as well as the organization.
As stated, research indicates the power of specific, relevant, concrete feedback that
reinforces application, synthesis, and evaluation related to the practical value of the measured
objectives (Rueda, 2011). Integrating constructive feedback that heavily influences goal value
(i.e., utility, intrinsic, attainment) justifies the use of provisional tasks, materials, and activities
that target DCS stakeholder knowledge-related deficiencies. Initially, identified deficiencies can
be applied holistically, but will be differentiated in instruction to the relevant needs of the DCS
stakeholder and, eventually, TAY learner. Homogenized strengths or weaknesses aids in the
itemizing and appropriating of relevant strategies and content to specified personnel for
personalized, engaged instruction (Rueda, 2011). This research design will contribute to
objective, quantitative analysis meant to inspire data-driven pedagogy to facilitate the learners’
metacognitive schema that influences self-relevant goal orientations related to utility, attainment,
performance, and mastery (Ambrose et al., 2010; Senko et al., 2011). Illustrated in Figure 4.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
51
Figure 4. Increasing Motivation Factors

Source: Adapted from Turning research into results (Clark, R. E., & Estes, F., 2008; Charlotte, NC: Information Age).
Attributions and Contingencies
Society and cultural value have an indelible conscious and subconscious influence on
shaping the impressionable psyche of the individual. Bang (2014) discusses progressive research
on the persistent influence culture and race have on the development of the individual and
cognitive growth. The diversity of cultural influences in a modern context often compounded
with national values, impacts the learner in complex ways from different perspectives (Kim &
McLean, 2014). As discussed in TAY autonomy, consequential social and academic effects are
directly correlated with common foster-care vulnerabilities (e.g., CSEC status). Wiggan (2007)
state that cognitive development and competence is correlated with varied sociocultural factors
tied to ecological components that shape micro and macro values indicated in goal orientations.
CTS’ DCS stakeholder trying to model, engage, and transfer content and pertinent skills to the
TAY learner is fundamentally reliant on contextualizing the holistic learning landscape related to
preexisting social and cultural influences. Consequently, it is imperative to account for and
accommodate the inevitable impact of how an individual’s society and personal culture shape
adopted ideology, personal merit, and professional opportunities. Socio-cultural variables that
shape academic acquisition relate to the learner and the learning context. According to Lee and
Shute (2010), the specific environment governs the learner’s cultural and psychological attributes
Factor 1
Help people
develop self-
and team-
confidence in
work skills.
Factor 2
Be alert and
remove
perceived
organizational
barriers to goal
achievement
Factor 3
Create a
positive
emotional
environment
for individuals
and teams at
work.
Factor 4
Suggest
reasons and
values for
performance
goals.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
52
impacting the efficacy of cognitive improvement. Integrating psychological methodology to
address socio-cultural variables constructing academic achievement allows for a comprehensive,
holistic analysis of the context with the anticipation of varied personal and social factors shaping
performance (Walton & Dweck, 2009).
For example, Yeager & Walton (2011) discuss segmented research that anticipates
psychological abstractions related to the learner’s perspectives (i.e., thoughts, feelings, ideas,
beliefs) to activate and articulate socio-cultural nuances framing academic production. CTS’
STRTP, group home residential care will manifest nuances specific to the necessity and reality of
a temporary living facility with distinct ethnographic factors seminal to the development of the
TAY tenants. The professional design intended to instruct the DCS stakeholder for viable TAY
transfer must construct an instructional framework that assimilates cognitive variables of the
learner and socio-cultural environment that comprise the whole of academic achievement—a
correlated analysis of concrete and abstract influencers.
The adoption of an ecological perspective of human development facilitates the
coordination of motivational domains while identifying and defining targeted cultural systems
(Bronfenbrenner, 2009). Anderman & Anderman (2010) address ecological “attributions” are
contextually influential to the learner’s lifespan development and motivational goal orientations
(p. 1). According to Brown et al. (2013), the diversity of socio-cultural attributions act as
“microaggressions” to be addressed in the instructional design or the learner must navigate
through formulaic metacognitive schema (p. 1). Consequentially, there exists a correlation
between socio-cultural and socio-emotional factors (Gasiewski et al., 2011). As stated, the
ecology of the learner shapes motivational choice, persistence, and mental effort (i.e., identity,
confidence, esteem, and purpose) while impacting goal orientations related to expectancy,
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
53
attainment, utility, performance, and mastery (Eccles, 2010; Gasiewski et al., 2011; Senko et. al,
2011). The ecology of the learner either emphasizes or misdirects the socio-cultural worth of the
task filtered through the learner’s societal, ecological lens—affecting the learner’s varied socio-
emotional contingencies.
The emotional state of the learner (i.e., DCS stakeholder and TAY learner) is inherently
connected to the efficacy of learning. Correlating the diversity and conduciveness of the learning
environment with the learner’s emotions impacts fluency, interest, motivation, and goal values,
critical to acquisition and achievement (Pekrun, 2011). According to Linnenbrink-Garcia &
Pekrun (2011), behavior, effort, and enjoyment from the learner are affected by the direct or
group-related context of instructional delivery. Designing a differentiated curricula and
instructional delivery that anticipates and accommodates the connection between the abstract
learner’s emotion and academic performance is pertinent to promote proficient, accessible, and
equitable cognitive development (MacCann, Fogarty, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2010).
As stated in professional and personalized learning, developing and managing a learning
environment that fosters engagement, high interest, and mastery attainment, addresses the
holistic learner and the learning context. CTS’ instructional implementation should be assembled
with professional development and personalized adaptation to the complexity of TAY cultural
and emotional factors. Stolle-McAllister (2011) address the value of identity and belongingness
by building “social and cultural capital” within the learning context (p. 12).
CTS’ unilateral mission frames the required cultural unity that capitalizes on identity
through building social capital while anticipating the diversity of cultural and emotional barriers.
Attributions are assumed to influence content value and importance that affect motivation. Rueda
(2011) states that research and curriculum design must anticipate socio-cultural barriers that
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
54
prevent an accessible and equitable use of the content. The relevant stakeholder is often too
varied and fragmented by prior-knowledge, motivational intent, and skill-based mastery. To
accommodate for attributive barriers impacting motivation, producing material and research-
based strategies implemented in the professional learning design will aid in systemic change in
pedagogical tools, learning culture, and coordination and alignment of professional and
personalized learning content and delivery. Success or failure accredited to effort is generally
increasingly adaptive and leads to positive expectancies for success (Eccles, 2010; Rueda, 2011).
Accurate feedback of the learner stakeholder’s deficient skills or knowledge can be reinforced by
the modeling of refined, personalized strategies. Imitation leads to promoting accurate, valid, and
adaptive attributions (Rueda, 2011). Providing DCS modeling and feedback that stresses the
process of learning and the importance of effort, strategies, and potential self-control of learning
is foundational to facilitate improvement in motivation for the TAY learner (Rueda, 2011).
As discussed in the professional learning instructional design, self-efficacy is also an
assumed attribution impacting motivation. The DCS stakeholder will be intimidated about the
process, content, and ramifications of the professional learning intervention. The stakeholder’s
motivation (e.g., intrinsic, expectancy, utility, and attainment) is directly related to awareness of
the program affecting personal confidence of mastery and application of the material (Eccles,
2010; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Senko et al., 2011). For example, self-efficacy can be quantitatively
measured through Likert scales that measure the stakeholder’s confidence (Rueda, 2011). These
measurements can indicate how confident the stakeholder is in their ability to plan and chart
personal growth with analysis of strengths and deficiencies. Identifying and accommodating for
acknowledged gaps can lead to planning and revising strategies that produce a personalized
change in skill-related competence and motivation.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
55
Data-driven pedagogy is the single most impactful factor influencing cognitive
achievement (McEwan & McEwan, 2003). According to Veselak (2018), further research is
needed to understand the variables impacting the learner’s diverse learning modalities and
associated socio-cultural variables influencing performance (Ambrose et al, 2010). This research
design will function as a tool to anticipate different teaching strategies that are rooted in specific
cognitive learning theories with a heightened awareness of socio-cultural influences impacting
TAY achievement (Ambrose et al., 2010). An accommodation and critical analysis of competing
abstract contingencies (i.e., motivation goals, learning theories, and socio-cultural value) will,
empirically, accommodate confounding variables to extend future pedagogical studies (Yeager,
Henderson, Paunesku, Walton, D’Mello, Spitzer, & Duckworth, 2014).
Clark & Estes (2008) state, “Connections between performance goals and people’s
interests” are an inherent part of any impactful research design or instructional adoption (p. 95).
Motivation, learning differences, and inherent value (Yeager et al., 2014) are elemental to
address inevitable accountability measures while accommodating teaching strategies that are
sensitive to goal orientations (Robinson Kurpius & Stafford, 2006). Achievement goals that
satisfy performance measures (Senko et al., 2011) while considering a holistic perspective of the
stakeholder’s attributions provide the fidelity to achieve a deep, long-term, and impactful goal
values (Harackiewicz, Canning, Tibbetts, Priniski, & Hyde, 2016). A research design that adjusts
for motivational components impacting performance and transfer accounts for the whole learner,
strengths and weaknesses. Research that fosters a conscientious recognition of confounding
factors affecting learning is positioned to author an evaluative narrative that is accessible,
pragmatic, and viable for performance achievement (Johansson, 2011) while building self-
efficacy and autonomy (Gasiewski et al., 2011).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
56
Organization Factors

CTS’ resources and, specifically, the STRTP group homes servicing TAY females are
multi-dimensional, complex systems. According to Tomlinson (2017), educational platforms are
intricate systems that navigate the myriad of physical, social, psychological, and academic
factors (e.g., socio-cultural, socio-emotional, and cognitive acquisition). CTS’ TAY resources
address all of the educational components with the addition of an at-risk learner population
circumventing multiple, highly complex areas of concern convoluted with multifaceted
ecological influences (Klasey & Brantley-Harris, 2020). An educational center with a
heightened context and the stakeholder’s precarious needs is an opportunity for an undiluted,
focused concentration on organizational mission objectives (Ambrose et al., 2010).
Organizational Culture
The complexity of CTS’ organizational design and varied resources relies on teacher-
learner stakeholders (i.e., DCS) to engage in professional adoption and integration of scrutinized
organizational mission targets. Cole (2004) states that reaching organizational objectives relies
on the development of a “culture of vibrant teacher discourse . . . and a commitment from all
teachers to engage in activities designed to continually improve their teaching effectiveness” (8).
Clark and Estes (2008) complement this quote stating, “Organizational culture inevitably filters
and affects all attempts to improve performance . . .” (p. 103). The organizational entity
consequentially acts as benefactor with previously articulated rules related to employment and
the beneficiary (i.e., employee). An organizational adoption of well-crafted, sincere, realistic,
and contextually appropriate professional learning objectives promotes and reinforces the
learning and working culture indicative of the provisional resources intrinsically aligned to moral
imperatives of relevant stakeholders (Rueda, 2011).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
57
Culture dictates the context and is integral to achieving and adopting organizational
commitments (Clark & Estes, 2008). CTS’ heightened awareness that professional, personalized
learning for TAY transfer begins with the abstract organizational attitude manifested through
concrete supervisory temperaments affecting the tangible and intangible personality traits of
pertinent constituents. Leadership is inseparable from attitude, and attitude is ubiquitous and
instrumental in the adoption, engagement, ownership, and accountability of shared objectives
shaping morale, performance, and mastery values (Rueda, 2011; Senko et al., 2011). The
organizational approach to building an intelligently defined culture necessitates the need to usurp
the inanimate, utilitarian impression of the impersonal and strategically transcend the abstract
entity through accessible and relatable supervisory personnel, protocol, and objectives (Rueda,
2011). As stated, an organizational cultural model (i.e., values, beliefs, and attitudes), though
abstract, influences the mood, tone, or persona of the specific context (Clark & Estes,
2008). Aligning the organizational framework to the cultural tone is necessary for latitudinal
ownership and vertical implementation (Rueda, 2011). Sharing a cultural campaign that
measures formatively creates an accessible feeling of teamwork for all stakeholders.
Organizational Protocol
Organizational protocol is steeped in tradition and systemic bureaucracy that shapes
culture, policies, and procedures (Rueda, 2011). CTS’ development and implementation of a
professional learning paradigm need to anticipate and evaluate the efficacy of policy and
procedure related to mission goals and cultural impact. Bretzmann (2015) suggests four teacher-
learner profile components be considered in personalized instruction and on-going evaluation:
strengths, needs, interests, and constraints. Organizational effort that addresses differentiated
needs of the learner attempts an authentic initial assessment of learner engagement while
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
58
advertising continued learner support, addressing the proficiency of targeted instruction, and
endorsing a personalized culture. Administrative consideration of the omnipresent cultural
influence of the organization is germane to provisional and vital educational, social, emotional,
and psychological dynamics of all beneficiaries (Labone & Long, 2016; Rickabaugh, 2016).
Organizational Collaboration
Research indicates that learner performance and mastery goal orientations are directly
related to the cultivation of organizational collaboration (Butler, Lauscher, Jarvis-Selinger, &
Beckingham, 2004). The conventional educational term of Professional Learning Communities
(PLC) is applicable in CTS’ educational context. A generic term for effective, organizationally
sponsored collaborative allotment addresses collegial feedback, critique of pedagogy,
stakeholder integration, shared accountability (Butler et al., 2004), and performance and mastery
achievement (Senko et al. 2011).
Lieberman, Campbell, & Yashkina, (2016) write, “Opportunities for teachers to lead their
own learning and that of their colleagues, can benefit individual and collective professional
learning . . .” (p. 7). As indicated in the definitions of professional and personalized learning,
advocating a culture that practices a model of teacher as learner is principal in the PLC design,
affecting declarative, procedural, metacognitive knowledge domains, addressing cognitive load
concerns, and anticipating motivational variables (e.g., goal orientations, attributions, and
contingencies). Dufour (2007) comments on the hypothetical impact of PLCs on culture and
learning, stating that an organization’s instructional design should focus on cognitive acquisition,
not pedagogy. The implication is PLC energy and time should be allotted to cognitive and
motivational theories of learning acquisition, affecting the achievement of all stakeholders. The
semantical indication is that the instructional design should tailor the pedagogical strategies and
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
59
collaborative components with a singular mission of performance-driven results. The PLC
design accommodates the teacher-learner suggestion while remaining faithful to addressing
KMO factors related to extrinsic and intrinsic goal indicators (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Organizationally subsidized PLC-driven professional learning displays an adherence to the
overarching goals while fostering a culture for sustainable achievement. CTS’ residential group
homes consist of a learner clientele (i.e., DCS and TAY) that would benefit from a culture that
advocates for collective analysis, learner-driven tasks, performance and mastery application, and
collaborative teams dedicated to personal and organizational aims.
Dufour (2007) highlights the encyclical refinement of data-driven instruction at the core
of PLC programs. PLC’s evaluative process considers the correlation between professional and
personal reflections related to learner achievement and potential knowledge, motivational, and
organizational influences encumbering performance (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009). Reflection
of process and practice is integral to PLC implementation. Timperley and Alton-Lee (2008)
discuss empirical studies suggesting that learner achievement is most effective with provisional
resources within the collaborative context, not individual instructor time and supplies. Research
indicates that PLC collaboration is a rich resource of shared, empirically-driven strategies with
positive cultural implications (Dufour, 2007). Embedded in the PLC collaborative design and
integration, KMO relevant assumptions are addressed individually and holistically.
Organizational Stakeholders
The pervasive, inferential organizational influence shaping culture, reinforcing mission
goals, obliging DCS stakeholder accountability, and servicing TAY learner resources is a
relational conversation between benefactor and beneficiaries. Organizational collaboration is a
unified, collective experience from supervisory to learner-centered roles. Timperley and Alton-
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
60
Lee (2008) emphasize the top-down collective imperative of all stakeholders, suggesting that
learner achievement (i.e., TAY independence) is a communal responsibility. The combined
effort of all stakeholders, administrative to learner, is aided in each team-member’s defined role
(Timperley & Alton-Lee, 2008).
Administrative Stakeholder. Supervisory roles are culturally influential, dictating
momentum, proficiency, and efficacy of the relevant educational paradigm; accordingly, it is
important that administrative roles are dynamically assimilated into the educational structure
(Timperley & Alton-Lee, 2008). The administrative stakeholder clarifies organizational direction
and vision, structuring and revising policy and procedure, fostering culture of teamwork, and
monitoring performance-driven goals. Administrative roles are instrumental in developing
collegial and learner-safe relationships, promoting work fulfilment, and stabilizing employee
attrition (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999). The value and longevity of an organizational
paradigm-shift in instructional resources require perseverance, personal and professional
obligation, and measurable, objective accountability. Rickabaugh (2016) states that the
sustainability of organizational vitality resides in the cultural cultivation that values
differentiated application, ingenuity, and assimilation. Timperley (2008) comments, “Sustained
improvement depends on teachers developing professional, self-regulatory skills” (p. 24)
indicative of the described personal and professional instructional design.
Organizational focus on structure and protocol is the driving force that controls the
context and sustainability of administrative objectives. Addressing structure and refined protocol
is not a simple, direct change-agent or catalyst for visible growth; the identification, articulation,
and development of refined safeguards of present flaws are needed to complement fundamental
change against an ineffective or rigid systemic framework that paralyzes efforts and “cripple[s]”
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
61
cultural adoption among stakeholders (Rickabaugh, 2016, p. 52). Lastly, organizational support
for professional and personal learning deliberation and refinement is required for long-term,
effective change to provide the fidelity of TAY transfer. Vetting instructional components with
multi-tiered filtering for organizational change or priorities should be met with care, objectivity,
and collaboration. Organizations that are not careful to define, clarify, and justify structural and
procedural change can negate the consolidated efforts of the personal and professional
instructional agenda.
DCS Stakeholder. The targeted DCS stakeholder is referred, conceptually, as a teacher-
learner due to the anticipated knowledge, motivational, pedagogical, and organizational related
deficiencies (Rueda, 2011). The targeted learners exist and perform in the framework of the pre-
existing organization. Analyzing concrete cultural structures specific to the context is
complemented with the cultural nuances that shape the abstract beliefs and values of the setting
(Rueda, 2011). Anticipating cultural barriers, both concrete and abstract, is necessary to adjust
and assimilate into the professional paradigm in relation to the achievement of the learner
stakeholder and TAY student. As stated, the concrete organizational factors influencing culture
will be part of the adoption and ownership of the organizational campaign. Since the stakeholder
is expected to be new to KMO content knowledge and pedagogical strategies, it is pertinent to
adjust to the existing organizational context (Rueda, 2011).
Accommodating the dynamics between teacher-learner and TAY student-learner related
to collaboration and continual facilitation of the instructional program is important to the
viability of the organizational culture affecting learner’s progress—pertaining to available
resources and the organizational framework. Achieving a cohesive, steady, and progressive
organizational operation, as it relates to the vertical KMO correlation, learner collaboration, and
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
62
cross-disciplinary curriculum alignment, is limited by past organizational inconsistencies,
changing focus, unvetted measures, and employment attrition. The nature affecting cultural
restraints often results in attrition of employment (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999).
In CTS’ collaborative context, in-house quasi-administrative roles and DCS stakeholder
learners necessitate professional instructional support for effective content processing, skill
integration, and self-regulatory accountability (Lieberman et al., 2016). Research indicates that
mid-level facilitation is the pivotal instructional piece for integration and sustainable measures;
however, the viability of in-house mid-level managerial personnel and direct DCS stakeholder is
reliant on the fidelity of data-driven instructional practice and evaluative protocol for
organizational collaboration and liability (Timperley & Parr, 2010). Vertical teaming (i.e., coach-
learner to DCS-learner) is challenged with inconsistent issues of pertaining to instructional
transfer and effective accountability measures, affecting mood or temperament for total buy-in of
the organizational campaign. These inconsistencies add confusion to properly implement KMO
strategies foundational in the intervention (Lieberman et al., 2016). Ideally, anticipating and
adjusting to the structure that has led to the instability will provide unification and continuity of
all stakeholders’ ownership of the campaign and intervention (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009).
Also, collaboration between all learner stakeholders—amount of time, infrequent professional
development, and disconnected work schedules—does not allow for consistent collaboration and
feedback, ultimately influencing the fluidity of the program (Lieberman et al., 2016; Spaulding
& Smith, 2012). Accommodating the organizational limitations allows for a vertical delivery that
manifests consistency and application for intrinsic value (Senko et al., 2011; Ryan & Deci,
2000).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
63
Administrative appointed, mid-level and lead teacher-learner employees mirror the
educational “coaches” approach. Recognizing and promoting employees based on expertise and
valued longevity formulates a hierarchy for accountability and disseminated information that
addresses content and objective gaps in personnel while supporting a cohesive cultural
environment (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009). Aguilar (2013), commenting on the value of
quasi-administrative coaching roles, states that integrated peer “coaching” provides innate
opportunities to share strengths, model evaluative feedback, display moral imperatives, and
exhibit self-regulatory and self-efficacy strategies. Darling-Hammond et al. (2009) write, " . . .
administrators identify well-regarded veteran educators and assign them to provide ongoing
guidance, advice, and mentoring” to impact the desired collaborative culture and achieve
performance measures (p. 11). CTS’ appointment of veteran DCS coaches is highly effectual due
to the direct access to the TAY learner. As the DCS teacher-learner evolves and refines
personalized strategies for TAY transfer, appointing lead stakeholders streamlines strategies and
content through exemplary co-teaching feedback and peer observations (Bowgen & Sever,
2009). Lastly, developing and integrating coach-level facilitation creates a vital link between the
supervisory roles and teach-learner stakeholders. Administrative functions are designed to
enforce punitive accountability for corrective policy and regulation alignment; however, coaches
bridge the supervisory punitive gap that can negatively affect culture and instructional design
optimization (Spaulding & Smith, 2012). Also, quasi-administrative coaching roles can often
alleviate managerial responsibilities while using administrative duties as an opportunity for
professional and personal growth. The presence of non-punitive, peer-equal coaching support
converts organizational tasks into collective individual and professional advancement (Spaulding
& Smith, 2012).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
64
Organizational Accountability
An analytical critique of the relationships and responsibilities of represented constituents
offers a coherent and cohesive evaluation of factoring variables influencing the fidelity of
resources (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). In the context of CTS’ STRTP, group home
educational facilities, the mission to cultivate transferable TAY academic and social life skills,
which these services are designed to personify, are, invariably, attached to appointment and
obligation between stakeholders (as cited in Dubnick, 2014). According to Conner and Rabosky
(2011), educationally-focused services are taxed with the provision of the fidelity of resources
impacting three specific barriers: affordability, access, and accountability. These categories
create relationships and corresponding responsibilities that generate keywords that indicate the
role of each member (Dubnick, 2014). A keyword like accountability is etymologically rooted in
social reliance with an evaluative quality of progress or achievement (Dubnick, 2014). Beyond
the denotative definition is a modern connotative application that extends into governance and
politics concerning account-giving medians in socio-cultural interactions (Dubnick, 2014).
Depending on the “narrative means,” the context of organizational accountability can be applied
to four areas of discourse: Institutionalization, Mechanization, Juridicization, and Incentivization
(Dubnick, 2014, p. 13). These contexts offer a framework to parse the representing CTS roles
while providing a vernacular that highlights a hierarchy of governance (i.e., public, private, and
third sector) (Dubnick, 2014).
In the context of CTS’ group home residences, accountability evolves from a generalized
theoretical and “formalistic . . . answerability” (Romzek & Dubnick, 1987, p. 228) to a specific
experimental framework of the governance of control (i.e., discourses) (Dubnick, 2014) applied
to the DCS stakeholder and, eventually, TAY learner. A semantic examination of discourses of
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
65
governance (i.e., Institutionalization, Mechanization, Juridicization, and Incentivization)
(Dubnick, 2014) is complemented by the specific context dictating the extent of internal and
external controlling agencies influencing CTS’ organizational objectives (Romzek & Dubnick,
1987). Romzek & Dubnick (1987) apply Dubnick’s latter narratives of governance as an
“interplay of these two dimensions” (i.e., control and degree) (p. 228). CTS is subject to these
two dimensions that create definable and purposeful categories or “systems” of governance that
clarify the expectations of represented constituents: Bureaucratic, Legal, Professional, and
Political (Romzek & Dubnick, 1987, p. 227).
Director and Provider. Among scholars, these categorical systems overlap and often
vary in terminology; however, applying the authoritative, directorial source to the receiving
provisional CTS stakeholder will frame accountability (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004). An
analysis of Director and Provider accountability systems represented at CTS is represented from
hierarchical administrative governance (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004). The CTS
administration can be viewed through an internal bureaucratic lens if applied beyond a
conventional corporate context (Burke, 2004). Hentschke & Wohlstetter (2004) simplify the
nuances of education systems regarding three dimensions: values, decision rights, and
information (p. 18). Bureaucratic jurisdiction (i.e., CTS) is limited in “authority over decisions”
(Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004, p. 19) due to pre-existing public education criteria and
federal/state policies and regulations related to TAY services and resources.
Consequently, an organization is challenged to address misaligned values and limited
rights for decision-making impacting performance content, often misrepresenting targeted
performance or mastery orientations (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004). Firestone and Shipps
(2005) identify that organizational, educational leadership often lacks competence to deduce
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
66
conflicting goal values represented in each accountable system. CTS’ bureaucratic leadership
functions as Director to enforce regulations for the efficacy of the culture and TAY educational
environment. Charged with the punitive enforcement of ineffective performance, the
administration expects stability and often relies upon a system of incentivizing (Dubnick, 2014)
compliance and reprimanding non-compliance (Burke, 2004). Administrators can create
incentive for the learner-Provider through promotion (e.g., coaching), salary, recognition, and
charting performance and mastery goal expectations (e.g., TAY graduation compliance). With
unified values and viable performance information, limited decision making is compensated with
cooperation between relevant stakeholders for timely reporting, disciplinary due process,
personal or professional accountability, and organizational incentivization (Dubnick, 2014),
enforcing regulations of the bureaucratic system (Burke, 2004).
Romzek and Dubnick (1987) apply the bureaucratic system to a managerial entity (i.e.,
CTS) not as interconnected and reliant on the cohesion of all stakeholders unique to the
educational paradigm. CTS’ bureaucratic system is limited by the legality of its jurisdiction, but
it is inseparable and determined by the collaboration between administration and DCS. The
educational paradigm is dictated by authority restrictions that limit the use of “influential policy
levers” of direct observational evaluation (Lee, Walker & Ling Chui, 2012, p.593). Romzek and
Dubnick (1987) state that the efficacy of a system relies on “an organized and legitimate
relationship between a superior and a subordinate . . . [functioning within] a surrogate system of
standard, . . . clearly stated rules and regulations” (p. 228). Despite limited, direct bureaucratic
authority from CTS organizational personnel in an observational context, the efficacy of the
learner stakeholder’s performance is determined by the administration’s support that
complements the pedagogical efficiency and efforts for the TAY residents. To maintain shared
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
67
values and information with limited authority, the role of Director and Provider are reversed to
adjust to the existing system (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004). Maintaining CTS’ bureaucratic
“provisional” governance aids the fluency and viability of TAY resources that nurtures a
ubiquitous learning culture (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004, p. 19).
CTS is also subject to internal and external performance accountability (Firestone &
Shipps, 2005). CTS’ mission is dedicated to serving the DCS and TAY learner population often
measured through evaluative, standardized assessments (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2017) and
performance rankings (i.e., California’s Academic Performance Index and the U.S. News and
World Report) (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004). Performance-based policy and measures (e.g.,
ESEA, NCLB, CAASP) create criteria that foster fidelity of the system designed to monitor
performance achievement gaps (Stecher & Kirby, 2004) that dictate content and delivery for the
teacher-learner and TAY student-learner. CTS’ performance system is affected by a legally
paralyzed bureaucratic public education system, and, therefore, manifests a disconnect that
impedes a cohesive and linear continuity of curriculum and instruction for TAY transfer. Since
the Director and Provider roles are bound by external limitations, DCS often adapt and modify
the required resources from the bureaucratic provisional system (i.e., public education). This
impotence of authoritative governance limits timely enforcement to address rules and regulations
which directly impacts performance accountability (Romzek & Dubnick, 1987) for DCS
stakeholder and TAY student. A causal relationship between these two systems influences the
fidelity of resources that range from effective curriculum, professional development, personnel
collaboration, data-driven benchmarks, and refined TAY resources (Hentschke & Wohlstetter,
2004). CTS will be challenged to nurture a culture of collaboration that influences motivational
attributes and academic progress connected to performance accountability (Senge, 1990).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
68
Performance accountability goals are measured through formative and summative
performance assessments influencing the administrative Director role in campaign adoption,
instruction, and implementation. Misappropriated resources or personnel selected impact the
Provider’s performance. To achieve the specific performance expectations, the administrative
Director grants sufficient discretion to the DCS-Provider that possesses specific expertise
(Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004). “Adverse selection” issues occur when the Director chooses
incapable and unwilling Providers (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004, p. 18). A limited CTS
selection protocol by the administrative Director misaligns values and information that impacts
the viability of the Provider. Compounding lack of expertise, information, and values, divergent
goals emerge that negatively impact the bureaucratic and performance relationship (Hentschke &
Wohlstetter, 2004). When the agencies of accountability are not aligned, a consequence of
“information asymmetry” occurs when Director and Provider have incongruent values and
information (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004, p. 19). CTS will be challenged with
asymmetry that misaligns information that negatively impacts performance and culture
(Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004).
For example, if the CTS administrative Director adopted curriculum without sufficient
input from the practicing Provider, this will negatively affect values, information, and
performance. Director to Provider opposition influences intrinsic and extrinsic values necessary
for performance and achievement. Hentschke and Wohlstetter (2004) label this as “weak
incentives” that alter the accountability systems concerning value, information, and authority (p.
19). The effectiveness of incentivization is reliant on the fidelity and applicability of proposed
and accessible resources (Dubnick, 2014).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
69
An analysis of the relationship and responsibilities of bureaucratic and performance
accountability systems with respect to values, authority, and information creates a framework to
identify contextual Director and Provider roles within the CTS organization. Leadership
influences instruction and learner performance by identifying external and internal
accountabilities tied to shared values (Firestone & Shipps, 2005). A persevering bureaucratic
accountability that provides the fidelity of integral resources impacting performance
accountability among all stakeholders will affect the cultural and academic climate foundational
for achievement (Romzek & Dubnick, 1987).
Peer-Based Benchmarking. An organization’s performance is articulated through
accountability (e.g., bureaucratic, professional) (Romzek & Dubnick, 1987). Comparing CTS’
TAY historical graduation rates, college and career readiness data, and related program resources
among comparable organizations, addresses a layer of accountability prior to the adoption and
implementation of program initiatives. Accountability deficits are contextualized through
organizational comparison by qualitative or quantitative measures (Bogue & Hall, 2003). Marsh
(2012) states that data-driven “benchmarks” often lack effectual change without a “systematic
examination [of] design, implementation, and effects” (p. 3). Consequently, it is imperative to
systematically analyze organizational peer-based benchmarking while evaluating the
corresponding objectives, process, criteria selection, resource allocation, and accountability for
measured learning (Dowd, 2005; Marsh, 2012).
Peer-based practices are to stimulate innovation, affecting cultural attitudes and behaviors
(Dowd, 2005). Peer-based benchmarking identifies knowledge, skill, and organizational process
deficiencies through data-driven needs assessments (Dowd, 2005). The framework creates an
encyclical refining process that is a continuous, internal benchmark with rigid criteria for
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
70
organizational procedures (Conley & Darling-Hammond, 2013). Identifying knowledge and skill
gaps through peer-based comparisons, the stakeholder is targeted for expert intervention based
on benchmarking data (Dowd, 2005). The organizational process adopts new procedures based
on benchmarking measures. Through targeted instructional change (e.g., intervention,
professional development, etc.), refined or altered instruction is supported and implemented
(Conley & Darling-Hammond, 2013). As new benchmarks are tabulated, the organizational
process is continually refined (Dowd, 2005). This refinement is innately repetitive and fosters a
framework that is cognizant of essential modifications in process and methods to meet the needs
of all learners (Black & William, 1998) while addressing achievement gap inequities related to
CTS’ TAY population.
Improving Accountability. Objective assessment that quantifies efficient learning is
paramount for external generalizability and for identifying reliable, internal
methodology. According to Carpenter (2012), testing accountability (i.e., formative and
summative) reinforces cognitive acquisition for sustainable application of the content/skill.
Scaffolded formative assessments capitalize on modeling and content frameworks to compare
and contrast the requested skill/s to be measured on summative testing for practical use
(Lipnevich, McCallen, Miles, & Smith, 2014). Strategically correlating itemized summative and
formative objectives to levels of cognitive purpose (i.e., taxonomy) differentiates designed
accountability measures for viable pedagogy that yields long-term, cohesive results (Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001). Consequently, equitable and sustainable learning is reliant on the
accountability of data-driven teaching, vetted learning techniques, and the authentic integration
of pedagogical strategies within the comprehensive instructional design.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
71
Achievement is dependent on the efficacy of each influencing stakeholder’s
commitments (Dowd, 2005). Articulating the parameters of each constituent’s accountability
highlights the independent responsibilities and dynamic relationships impacting organizational
objectives (Bogue & Hall, 2003). CTS’ filters of accountability can be processed through
bureaucratic and performance criteria shaped by peer-based comparisons for organizational and
performance measures (Romzek & Dubnick, 1987). Bureaucratic parameters interact with DCS
stakeholders and TAY learner performance to create Director and Provider roles (Bogue & Hall,
2003; Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004). Director and Provider tasks share an encyclical
relationship dependent on the fidelity of resources to increase TAY graduation rates and college-
readiness. To chart mission growth, peer-based selection (i.e., size, demographics, and
socioeconomics) reveals organizational deficiencies for evaluation.
Organizational gaps will guide accountability improvement impacting identified and
correlated benchmarking variables. Key factors will guide analysis and proposed action for
accountability improvement: framing criteria, stakeholder profiles, benchmarking criteria,
organizational barriers, and detailed accountability protocol. Improvements addressing
organizational gaps will account for bureaucratic and performance accountability through peer-
based measures (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004). An evaluative process that highlights
necessary resources (e.g., curriculum, intervention, ethical conduct) and constituency
commitments (e.g., leadership, discipline, professional development) identifies causal and
effectual variables to increase stakeholder performance and proficiency (Dowd, 2005).
Organizational action for improved accountability is centered on intervention strategies
aligned to an adopted code of ethics (Murdock & Anderman, 2006). Improving accountability
measures without stabilizing and nurturing a foundational ethical culture is consequentially
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
72
myopic and falsifies performance indicators with distorted results. An ethically driven
curriculum will limit cheating and prevent invalidating performance measures. The fidelity of
each stakeholder’s role is rooted in the organizational culture that cultivates ethical temperance
with persevering qualities among all constituents (Murdock & Anderman, 2006). Organizational
accountability stipulates instructional policy and ethical code while performance accountability
manifests the enforcement of the adopted code (Murdock & Anderman, 2006).
For example, The University of Southern California’s (USC) one-page ethical code of
conduct impacts all stakeholders, impacting school culture, efficiency, and reputation (USC
Board of Trustees, 2004). USC’s code states, “We nurture an environment of mutual respect and
tolerance” (USC Board of Trustees, 2004, p. 1). Organizational support for adopting a one-page
code of ethics for CTS would establish the necessary academic foundation with consistent
reinforcement. Performance increase is directly tied to the legitimacy of the task and the
framework used to measure benchmarking (Murdock & Anderman, 2006). Stakeholder
“extrinsic outcomes” are correlated to ethical violations (i.e., academic cheating), and, therefore,
adopting a valid organizational policy impacts culture and complements the intrinsic goals
associated with dishonesty (Murdock & Anderman, 2006, p. 142). Code adoption should rely on
“familial” and “fiduciary duty” necessary for provisional resources and internal and external
validity (USC Board of Trustees, 2004, p. 1). A culture guided by rules and regulations benefits
the entity and, therefore, its constituents. Ethics sustain the common social good, reinforcing the
individual within CTS’ culture while improving TAY results. The ethical code will drive
performance accountability and protect benchmarking integrity, addressing organizational
accountability deficiencies (Velasquez et al., 2011). Inherently foundational to the faithfulness of
the instructional design, ethical checks and balances are necessary for long-term sustainability.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
73
Actualizing an ethical code to drive data-driven instruction is a manifestation of a climate
that values integrity and nurtures intrinsic motivational value (Murdock & Anderman, 2006).
Knowledge and skill-related factors are limited by the adoption and adaptation of new programs
dependent on the organizational process (Clark & Estes, 2008). Using data-driven instructional
methods will aid in the facilitation of integral formative and summative assessments while
aligning curriculum to ethical accountability (Hallak & Poisson, 2005).
For example, digitizing qualitative or quantitative measures allows for the cataloging of
information to drive consistent, data-driven instruction (Hallak & Poisson, 2005). Protocol is
necessary to coordinate databases, websites, and reusable digital measures for disciplinary
reciprocity (Hallak & Poisson, 2005). Recycling digital platforms provides intervention
uniformity while charting incremental growth and uncovering weaknesses (Hallak & Poisson,
2005).
Bureaucratic accountability addresses performance measures to support the fidelity of
resources, despite Director or Provider context (Strike, Haller, & Soltis, 2005). Limiting varied
digital tools to official organizational selections and, subsequently, streamlining stakeholder
training creates a cohesive, proficient learning experience. Repetitive access strengthens
ownership and competence by repetition of reciprocal jargon and disaggregated data for
synthesis and evaluative refinement (Hallak & Poisson, 2005).
Quantifying performance measures allows for manipulation of itemized data descriptors
that guide instruction and coordinates ancillary material, complementing ethical accountability
and codifying results that are transferable and generalizable (Marsh, Pane, & Hamilton, 2006) to
the TAY population. Digital platforms are diverse in application: alpha-numeric data, ordinal
ratings, alternated tests and keys, and digital synthesis (Hallak & Poisson, 2005). Digital
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
74
platforms improve “security and transparency,” limiting variables for “fraud” (e.g., plagiarism—
Turnitin.com) (Hallak & Poisson, 2005, p. 7). Digital platforms address “accountability-as-
liability,” reinforcing ethics while effectually implementing objective intervention strategies
(Dubnick, 2003, p. 417). Technology quantifies instruction that accommodates certificated
restraints while synthesizing summative results (Marsh et al., 2006) and providing unilateral
communication for organizational involvement while anticipating declarative and procedural
misinterpretations (Conley & Darling-Hammond, 2013; O’Day, 2002).
Recycling digital systems supports the code of ethics while anticipating declarative,
procedural, and metacognitive knowledge factors (Rueda, 2011). Organizational gaps impacting
achievement must anticipate, as stated, knowledge and skill related factors; however, addressing
college-readiness, the stakeholder’s motivation is indicative of lifelong learning (Rueda, 2011).
Beyond metacognition, organizational accountability hinders or encourages a system of extrinsic
or intrinsic motivation to complement the pre-existing framework (Rueda, 2011).
The organizational structure performs as facilitator, offering resources, and managing the
cultural motivational climate (Rueda, 2011). Benchmarking measures will increase once the
organizational system accounts for stable conditions and viable performance measures
(Velasquez et al., 2011). The digital system is used to monitor continual motivational issues
impacting performance measures. Qualitative measures account for motivation, confidence,
interest, desire, and self-regulation (Ambrose, et al., 2010). Digital interviews, surveys, and
quizzes will provide organizational feedback to manage the climate.
Choice, persistence, and interest impact self-efficacy, resulting in lack of personal
ownership, frustration, and, ultimately, marginal performance achievement (Pajares, 2010).
Using the data-driven system adopted for ethical control and pedagogical efficiency,
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
75
organizational management can account for motivational health to sustain encouragement.
Surveys monitor choice or interest, persistence, mental effort, misapplied knowledge, ineffective
strategies, and self-regulated suggestions (Pajares, 2010).
The digital system used to measure motivational factors will confirm theoretical
terminology and procedures while addressing utility value necessary for motivational adoption
(Pajares, 2010). For example, CTS’ organizational accountability can be addressed through
Likert scales measuring utility, intrinsic, extrinsic, or attainment value: importance, value, use,
and interest (Murdock & Anderman, 2006). Organizational concern to increase self-regulation
and self-advocacy will foster positive values, infuse cultural energy, and stimulate a conducive,
“enjoyable . . . climate” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 94 ). As stated, “Connections between
performance goals and people’s interests . . . represent an opportunity to do something that
interests” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 95). Specific, relevant, concrete feedback (Rueda, 2011)
surveyed digitally will provide guidance for TAY graduation and college-readiness strategies.
Improvement in accountability is measured in both concrete and abstract terms, a
necessary and complex analysis of quantitative and qualitative data (Marsh et al.,
2006). Addressing abstract qualities that are foundational to viable accountability roles is
nurtured from the commitment to a collective ethical code that is supported by external and
internal systems of measurement held to rigid standards of generalizable and transferable criteria
(Conley & Darling-Hammond, 2013). Using objective data to drive instructional methods is
axiomatic to achieving and maintaining validity while accessing gaps in knowledge and skills—
whether organizational, instructional, or learning-oriented (Dowd, 2005). A marriage of ethical
accountability and data-driven protocol is manifested in accommodating motivational influences
(Murdock & Anderman, 2006). Using specific motivational theories and methods to address
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
76
cognitive or socio-economic barriers is necessary to improve accountability holistically
(Murdock & Anderman, 2006). Increasing motivational awareness completes the spectrum
influencing accountability roles: ethical, procedural, and motivational factors among all CTS
stakeholders.
Summary
The preceding review of relevant and current literature addressed personalized and
professional learning instructional designs filtered and shaped through KMO considerations:
cognitive science, socio-cultural and socio-emotional attributions and contingencies related to
motivation (e.g., choice, persistence, and mental effort), and systemic organizational policies and
procedures impacting culture, performance, efficacy, and accountability. The objective of
Chapter Two is to heighten awareness and survey the landscape of literature of influential
variables pertinent to CTS’ STRTP, group TAY facilities attempting to improve impactful and
sustainable academic, social, emotional, and financial skills leading to self-sustaining autonomy.
A holistic purpose of this literature review is to link relevant theories and practices addressing
concrete and abstract issues for high-performing stakeholder adoption and integration for TAY
student-learner transfer. A responsible and diligent review of the learner stakeholder in varied
educational contexts highlights the contrasts and comparisons contributing to the general
educational environment, the specific cultural tone, and the differentiated personal and
professional KMO instructional design of the whole learner (e.g., psychological barriers,
cognitive attrition, and goal orientations). If the organizational accountability and refined
integration of personal and professional adopted policies and procedures can successfully shape
culture and reinforce DCS stakeholder integration, then improved TAY high school graduation
and college and career readiness will be enhanced while cataloging the different relationships
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
77
and roles of all constituents. The DCS stakeholder personnel is the concentrated stakeholder for
this research design. A summary of KMO variables is presented in Table 2. Chapter Three
proposes the conceptual and methodological framework to operationalize relevant variables by
quantitative and qualitative measurements. (For a list of term definitions and acronyms, see
Appendix N).

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
78
Table 2. Summary of DCS Stakeholder Assumptions
DCS KMO Stakeholder Assumptions Research Literature
Knowledge (Declarative)
• Stakeholders do not have factual knowledge of cognitive science, types of
knowledge, and learning barriers to proficiently intercede for TAY population
• Stakeholders do not know the factual terminology of pedagogical instructional
strategies, designs, and complex content (e.g., literary terms used to provide
objective and subjective formative and summative intervention strategies) to
proficiently promote TAY performance
• Stakeholders do not have factual and conceptual knowledge and application
of pedagogical or statistical research measurements (e.g., interviews, surveys,
quizzes) to qualitatively measure abstract values of motivation, content
usability, interest, effective test taking strategies, self-regulation, self-
confidence for TAY transfer
• Stakeholders do not know the implications of TAY high school graduation
standardized test scoring (e.g., CAASP) in relationship to skill-based level
descriptors and college or post-secondary skill-based skills for employment

Knowledge (Procedural)
• Stakeholders do not know effective strategies to promote personalized
instruction with varied, differentiated approaches to promote performance and
mastery goal values
• Stakeholders do not know how to read, annotate, synthesize, and produce an
effective product based on specific measured standards for effective TAY
modeling
• Stakeholders do not possess the knowledge of the techniques or methodology
to identify complex content (e.g., persona, audience, action, purpose) to
translate the components for synthetic and evaluative understanding related
college and career readiness standards for effective TAY modeling
• Stakeholders are not familiar with data collection methodology for analysis of
performance and mastery achievement to refine and direct instructional
practices
• Stakeholders do not know effective collaborative strategies to promote
engagement and interest within the context of personal and professional
learning for effective TAY modeling

Knowledge (Metacognitive)
• Stakeholders do not know how to reflect on their own discovery of new
content meaning and learning strategies for effective TAY modeling
• Stakeholders do not know how to evaluate their own strengths and challenges
within relationship to strategizing and uncovering content and personalized
schema related to all levels of cognitive taxonomy
• Stakeholders are not aware of their own (goals, interest, judgments,
stereotypes, etc.) in relationship to their individual learning deficiencies and
strengths related to attributions and contingencies
• Stakeholders do not self-regulate their incremental approach to specific
content and integrated schema
• Stakeholders do not have knowledge about the general strategies they use for
learning—thinking and problem solving (lack of self-awareness)
Ambrose, Bridges,
DiPietro, Lovett, &
Norman, 2010; Mayer,
2011; Rickabaugh, 2016;
Reeves, 2010
Rueda, 2011; Ryan &
Deci, 2000; Senko,
Hulleman, &
Harackiewicz, 2011;
Temperley & Alton-Lee,
2008; Zmuda, Ullman, &
Curtis, (2015)

Ambrose et al., 2010;
Clark & Estes, 2008;
Hargreaves, 2006; Kallick
& Zmuda, 2017; Mayer,
2011; Rickabaugh, 2016;
Rueda, 2011; Ryan &
Deci, 2000; Senko et al.,
2011; Timperley, 2008;
Timperley & Alton-Lee,
2008; Timperley, Wilson,
Barrar, & Fung, 2008

Ambrose et al., 2010;
Choi, van Merrienboer, &
Paas (2014); Clark, 2012;
Clark, Feldon, Van
Merrienboer, Yates, &
Early, 2008; Dinsmore,
Alexander, & Loughlin,
2008; Feldon 2006;
Kirschner, Kirschner, &
Paas, 2006; Rueda, 2011;
Ryan & Deci, 2000;
Schunn & Nelson, 2006;
Stankov & Kleitman,
2014; Winne, 2010
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
79
Table 2 continued. Summary of DCS Stakeholder Assumptions
DCS KMO Stakeholder Assumptions Research Literature
Knowledge (Metacognitive) contd.
• Stakeholders do not monitor progress of improvement in itemized descriptors
and specific intervention strategies for effective TAY modeling
• Stakeholders do not adjust strategies to accomplish the most effective access
to correct information or skill-based achievement to avoid redundancy and
learning attrition and mental fatigue for effective TAY modeling

Motivation
• Stakeholders are not developed in choice selection criteria to address the
‘what’ and ‘how’ of the personalized and professional learning
• Stakeholders do not validate nor how to use theoretical/conceptual knowledge
introduced in the personal and professional instructional design: goal values
• Stakeholders are not developed in personal awareness of socio-cultural and
emotional influences related to engagement and personalized schema
integration: attributions and contingencies
• Stakeholders are intimidated about the process of intervention content,
procedures and policies related to employment and efficacy of TAY transfer
• Stakeholders lack a heightened awareness of personalized schema and values
• Stakeholders are not self-confident to strategically integrate personalized
schema for achievement and TAY modeling transfer
• Stakeholders are not developed to identify cognitive, motivational, and
pedagogical strategies for effective TAY intervention and transfer
• Stakeholders are not comfortable or confident in collaborative instructional
contexts (e.g., PLC) for effective personalized performance and effective
modeling for TAY transfer

Organizational
• CTS’ professional learning and instructional designs need to be supported
with the fidelity of resources
• CTS’ policies and procedures need to be effectively communicated are
accessible for integration and measured accountability
• CTS’ “intervention campaign” needs to be articulated for alignment with pre-
existing mission goals/visions to connect an historical context
• CTS needs to develop a cohesiveness of the campaign as it relates to
stakeholder collaboration, cross-disciplinary content alignment, and
accountable TAY performance and mastery attainment
• CTS needs to promote tangible and intangible incentives for employment
retention and cultural sustainment
• CTS needs to address continuity related to professional development and the
disconnected stakeholder schedules/resources for consistent collaboration and
effective, timely feedback affecting the fluidity of the program
• CTS needs to acknowledge and routinely integrate strategies that promote
motivation, confidence, self-efficacy to validate the instruction for intrinsic
value of the adopted campaign

Anderman & Anderman,
2010; Ambrose et al.,
2010; Bang 2014;
Bretzmann, 2015;
Bronfenbrenner, 2009;
Darling-Hammond, Wei,
Andree, Richardson, &
Orphanos, 2009; Eccles,
2010; Harackiewicz,
Canning, Tibbetts,
Priniski, & Hyde, 2016;
Kim & McLean, 2014;
Labone & Long, 2016;
Lieberman, Campbell, &
Yashkina, 2016;
Spaulding & Smith, 2012;
Stolle-McAllister, 2011;
Veselak, 2018; Yeager,
Henderson, Paunesku,
Walton, D’Mello, Spitzer,
& Duckworth, 2014

Anderson & Krathwohl,
2001; Carpenter, 2012;
Clark & Estes, 2008;
Conley & Darling-
Hammond, 2013; Conner
and Rabosky, 2011;
Dubnick, 2014; Lee,
Walker & Ling Chui,
2012; Lipnevich,
McCallen, Miles, &
Smith, 2014; Marsh,
Pane, & Hamilton, 2006;
Marzano, 2007; Mayer,
2011; Pajares, 2010;
Romzek & Dubnick,
1987; Rueda, 2011; Ryan
& Deci, 2000; Senge,
1990; Senko et al., 2011;
Strike, Haller, & Soltis,
2005; Temperley &
Alton-Lee, 2008
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
80
CHAPTER THREE:
METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to address the efficacy of CTS’ female TAY high school
graduation and college-readiness program for STRTP, group home residents. A Gap Analysis
was used to identify knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) variables crucial to TAY
success (Clark & Estes, 2008) filtered through the DCS stakeholder for TAY transfer. To isolate
KMO gaps and propose personalized, professional learning design solutions for TAY
improvement, this analysis considered CTS’ existing organizational structure, content
implementation, and evaluation methodology,
Presently, the educational resources and programs for foster students, nationally and in
California, report a great need to increase TAY high school graduation rates and college-
readiness skills (CDE, 2020). A Gap Analysis validated KMO assumptions of CTS’ STRTP,
group home DCS stakeholder, having the most consistent and intimate access to the TAY
learner. For example, it was assumed that CTS’ DCS stakeholder lacked the requisite KMO
education required to serve the targeted TAY population. Validating isolated KMO assumptions
via the Gap Analysis guided subsequent solutions to help address identified gaps between CTS’
actual outcomes and desired outcomes, aiding the DCS stakeholder to positively influence the
TAY learner. Implementing KMO solutions through the medium of a proposed personal and
professional learning framework for the selected DCS stakeholder accounted for data-driven
techniques related to cognitive science, motivational factors, and organizational procedures.
Lastly, to maximize the greatest TAY high school graduation rates and college and career
readiness skills, the impact and vitality of CTS’ organizational culture that shapes and reinforces
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
81
the learning framework, accountability measures, and stakeholder implementation, was
considered in the instructional design evaluation. The following Gap Analysis listed assumed
problem causes correlated with assessed or validated observations (Clark & Estes, 2008). A
comprehensive Gap Analysis considered a wider range of related constituents; however, the
scope and sequence of this study limited the relevant stakeholders to the DCS stakeholders with
direct, daily TAY learner instruction.
The following three research questions were designed to guide and limit the focus of this
Gap Analysis pertaining to KMO factors impacting DCS stakeholder instruction for TAY
allocation:
The following three research questions framed this study:
• Does CTS’ DCS have the knowledge to serve the needs of the TAY learner?
• Does CTS’ DCS have the motivation and goal values to serve the needs of the
TAY learner?
• Does CTS’ organizational management support the necessary resources and
services to serve the needs of the TAY learner?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
Identification of factors impacting problem-solving was reliant on context and pre-
scripted methodology. Problem-solving methodology as a scripted framework for practical use
accessed content complemented by intended repetition, variation, identification, and solution for
the specific objective (van Merrienboer, 2013). Dinsmore et al. (2014) visualize the “nature” of
the content in a categorical matrix that clarifies attributes related to contextual “type” and
“domain” of problem-solving. The Gap Analysis KMO structure provided this domain-specific
matrix, forcing clarification, contrasting techniques, and comparing correlated behaviors specific
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
82
to each category. Complementary, Berg & Strough (2011) address empirical findings that
identify common component adjustments or revisions affecting the efficacy of the adopted
methodology. Identifying the problem-solving context shaped by strategic methodology (e.g.,
Gap Analysis) allowed for clarity of impeding variables with reciprocity for extended application
(van Merrienboer, 2013).
Diligent research that is grounded on data-driven instructional and psychological methods
will help to achieve “equitable education [and] . . . resource allocation based on context”
(Duncan-Andrade, 2007, p. 3). This Gap Analysis structure relied on data-driven theories and
research-based procedures intended to measure, evaluate, and disclose implementation gaps
while identifying causal assumptions, recommended validations, correlated learning theories, and
domain-specific KMO solutions (Clark & Estes, 2008). According to Rueda (2011), the Gap
Analysis “proposes a multidimensional model . . . [with] a more comprehensive lens for
considering achievement differences” (p. 13). This Gap Analysis functioned as an adaptable
“consultant model” for diverse organizational structures (e.g., business and education), offering
guidance in “providing assistance in solving real-world problems” (Rueda, 2011, p. 73).
The Gap Analysis process allowed for functional, compartmentalized cognitive,
motivational, and organizational domains impacting objective proficiency and utility. By
segmenting the relevant KMO components in accessible categories, performance-driven factors
were addressed independently with the objective of identifying overlapping and correlating
attributes, answering “why and what-if questions that rarely are addressed” (as cited in Clark &
Estes, 2008, xi). Specific to CTS’ organizational structure with TAY educational resources,
Rueda’s educational tailoring of the Gap Analysis was strategic in highlighting the nuances of
relevant pedagogical variables evaluated in non-traditional, educationally-focused organizations
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
83
(i.e., CTS). Educational resources for TAY learners in CTS’ residential care required the
consideration of a holistic context to faithfully provide a viable analysis of the specific
organization’s efficacy. To identify, validate, propose, design, and tailor applicable research-
based solutions, the Gap Analysis acted as a “highly theoretical framework” that directs results
to be “implement[ed] . . . as if all that mattered was adapting to the local context” (as cited in
Rueda, 2011, p. x).
CTS’ identified corporate educational goals were addressed with consistent determination
to contour general and less personal business goals to the intimacy of the employee-stakeholder
in the context of a delicate TAY learning culture. The malleability of the Gap Analysis to “think
globally, act locally,” funneled KMO assumptions, validations, and solutions with unilateral
application, activating all germane stakeholders required to meet and exceed organizational and
individual intentions (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Causal assumptions for the present Gap Analysis formulated performance deficiencies
concerning familiarity with CTS’ organizational structure and corresponding literature,
articulating common problematic KMO tendencies. Assessment and validation methodology
were constructed based on CTS’ organizational design, mission statement, and relevant reports
aligned with existing literature and research studies. To capitalize and assimilate the following
research design to CTS’ preexisting organizational configuration, related literature, and
applicable data, research methodology was guided by relevant literature documentation and
relied on descriptive analysis via qualitative instrumentation: DCS stakeholder focus groups,
organizational administrative interviews, and analytical critique of related documentation.
Recommended solutions constructed from applicable research were analyzed, synthesized, and
evaluated for appropriateness and feasibility. Subsequently, relevant measures were created and
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
84
formulated to CTS’ specific organizational, educational context to objectify and provide
defensible accountability to proctor the proficiency and efficacy of the endorsed KMO solutions
(Rueda, 2011).
Additionally, the New World Kirkpatrick taxonomy “blueprint” was used for KMO
integration and ensuing evaluative methodology (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The New
World Kirkpatrick Model (NWKM) complemented the initial four-level design with an inductive
approach, articulating refined organizational objectives that clarify “leading indicators” to
reinforce continuity between organizational solutions and goals (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016, p. 15).
Level 1, measuring “reaction” or preference to the professional development, functioned
as a stakeholder referendum that polls content “satisfaction,” “relevance,” and “engagement”
with the encyclical design to “monitor and adjust” at each level (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016, p. 21-22).
Level 2, measuring “learning” or “the degree to which participants acquire the intended
knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence and commitment based on their participation in the
training,” was used as a qualitative stakeholder self-reporting that integrated relevant knowledge
and motivational factors (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p.11).
Level 3 was designed as a measure of attainment and utility or “the degree to which
participants apply what they learned during training when they are back on the job” (Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2016, p.11). This level targeted components of incentivization (Dubnick, 2014):
reinforcement, encouragement, and recognition (i.e., tangible and intangible rewards)
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
85
Lastly, level 4 was reserved as a quantitative measure of “the degree to which targeted
outcomes occur as a result of the training and the support and accountability package”
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p.11). The NWKM level 4 revision employed “STRTP
observations” and varied methodology designed to distinguish “critical behaviors” affecting
organizational and individual goal values (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p.11). Stated in
Table 3 and Illustrated in Figure 5: NWKM.
Table 3. Kirkpatrick Four Levels of Evaluation

Source: Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.

Figure 5. The New World Kirkpatrick Model

Source: Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
86
Clark and Estes (2008) state, “Organizations need to be goal-driven, and currently, most
performance or work goal systems are not tied to an organization’s business goals” (p. 21). This
Gap Analysis model was foundationally dependent on fashioning “performance goals that
support” organizational direction and vision (Clark & Estes 2008, p. 21). CTS’ generalized
organizational goals required a funneling of deliberated, collaborative alignment to refined
“performance goals . . . [that] measure[d] the gap[s] between current achievement and desire
performance goal levels” while anticipating the “cost-benefit of closing each gap” (Clark &
Estes 2008, p. 21).
This Gap Analysis design initiated an intentional and methodical configuration designed
to filter, clarify, refine, and unify the reciprocity between current organizational vision,
achievement, and desire-driven performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Essential to the
management and objective accountability of fusing broader organizational objectives with
specific performance measures, a calculated, deductive restructuring of affiliated or correlated
organizational and individual goals was pertinent in the “accurate analysis of the gaps between
current and desired performance” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 22).
Subsequently, individual’s desire-driven goals were applied to the chosen stakeholder’s
goals with linear association to the organizational target. The Gap Analysis design engaged and
accommodated stakeholder accountability within the organizational context while dissecting
identifiable gaps at each level of goal orientation. As stated in Chapter One: Table 1 & Figure 1.
Organizational vision that directs inclusive and singular performance indicators were
measured in the Gap Analysis KMO domains (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
Compartmentalizing identified performance obstructions into manageable KMO categories
assisted formulaic, scientific diagnostics, identifying and clarifying autonomous and associated
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
87
Table 1. Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Vision
To be a community leader and exemplary model in promoting sustainable independence for
TAY foster care children residing in community-based live-in facilities seeking assistance in
living autonomous, productive, and prosperous lives.
Organizational Stakeholder Goal
In one year of TAY resource intervention adoption, CTS will chart, monitor, implement, facilitate,
and achieve 80% high school graduation for all senior TAY residents with 60% verification of
AB12 qualification and post-secondary education and/or employment goal orientations.
DCS Stakeholder Goal
In one year of the TAY resource intervention adoption, the DCS employees will have been trained,
resourced, evaluated, and certified in related high school graduation supports (i.e., pedagogical,
cognitive, and motivational factors) to promote and validate the organizational goal mission.
TAY Learner Stakeholder Goal
In one year of the TAY resource intervention adoption, the CTS’ TAY learners will have been
exposed to effective DCS KMO modeling and will display academic and social improvement
impacting high school graduation qualification and college and career readiness for TAY
autonomy.

Figure 1. Gap Analysis Process Model

Source: Adapted from Turning research into results (Clark, R. E., & Estes, F., 2008; Charlotte, NC: Information Age).
Step 1
Identify key
organizational goals
Step 2
Identify individual
performance goals
Step 3
Determine
performance gaps
Step 5A
Identify knowledge
& skill solutions &
implement
Step 5B
Identify motivation
solutions &
implement
Step 5C
Identify organizational
process & material
solutions & implement
Step 6
Evaluate results,
tune system, and
revise goals
Step 4
Analyze gaps to
determine causes
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
88
symptoms impeding organizational progress (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Intentionally
segmenting and incrementally concentrating on problematic assumptions affecting the learning
environment and stakeholder, KMO proficiency acted as an audited concession for categorical
accounting errors in each department or domain. Recessive factors were separately identified as
individual pieces of a larger organizational puzzle with forced acknowledgment or “branding” of
noticeable gaps in the larger picture. KMO labeling scaffolded a tactical methodology to
sequentially and hierarchically order causal KMO relationships, as stated, uncovering
interrelated or isolated tendencies. Lastly, the Kirkpatrick evaluative model was designed to
reinforce recurring accountability, adaptable to different contexts and compounding, covariable
factors for lateral and linear functionality between organizational and individual responsibilities
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Categorical KMO analysis is scientific, deductive epistemology in action, dedicated to
first-things. Aristotle’s axiom, “If the art of shipbuilding were in the wood, we would have ships
by nature,” (Robinson, 2004, p. 54) hints at the intended strategy of categorical and unilateral
KMO exploration. As stated by Robinson (2004), “For Aristotle, to know something is
essentially to know the cause of it; that is, to have a systematic, scientific understanding of things
(episteme) is to know the causes by which things are brought about” (p. 53). Consequently, the
pursuit of axiomatic causation, restricted and applied in a rigid schematic vacuum, produces
ordered and sequential relationships of ontological and teleological importance—revealing
previously unacknowledged performance gaps and ill-directed or superficial solutions.
Represented in the concrete and abstract elements embedded in this KMO model, “truly
developed knowledge embrace[d] not only the material, efficient, and formal causes, but the ‘that
for the sake of which’ these causes were recruited [terminus ad quem]. To understand x is to
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
89
‘know what x is for’” (Robinson, 2004, p.54)—ontological and teleological argumentation: sine
qua non. Acting upon robust and quantifiable assumptions was foundational to the fidelity of
viable solutions and sustainable progress.
Assessment of Performance Influences
As stated, accentuating causal and correlational relationships applied unilaterally at the
collective and individual level, the Gap Analysis model reinforced assessable operational targets,
exposing justified performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Assumed causes and
linked problems were managed both independently and collectively with deliberate KMO
compartmentalization, while segmented, KMO factors were critiqued via operationalized
qualitative data-collection (i.e., focus groups, interviews, and document analysis). CTS’ DCS
stakeholder personalized, professional learning design accounts for the individual KMO learning
factors while pursuing a holistic, organizational delineation inseparable from the learning
culture, supervisory accountability, and individual performance values.
Knowledge Assessment
The cognitive science domain was guided by Chapter Two’s literature analysis with
defined compounding and complementary assumed knowledge factors. Declarative knowledge
influences address expository, factual knowledge (Rueda, 2011) and relative learning barriers to
proficiently intercede for the TAY population. Assumed stakeholders’ limitations concerning
denotative terminology were directed toward addressing pedagogical instructional strategies,
designs, and complex, theoretical content (Ambrose et al., 2011) needed to proficiently promote
TAY performance. It was assumed that stakeholders were limited in conceptual knowledge and
application of pedagogical or statistical research measurements (e.g., interviews, surveys,
quizzes) to qualitatively measure abstract KMO values (Ambrose et al., 2011) for TAY transfer:
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
90
content usability, interest, effective test-taking strategies, self-regulation, self-confidence. Also,
stakeholders lacked awareness and experience of the ramifications or implications concerning
(Ambrose et al., 2011) TAY high school graduation standardized test scoring (e.g., CAASP),
skill-based level descriptors, and college or post-secondary skill-based skills for acceptance or
employment. See Table 4: Declarative Knowledge.
The declarative knowledge assessment addressed instrumentation that inspected the
competency of the content represented in effectual professional learning with the intent of TAY
transfer: accountability of curriculum standards, content skills, and learning requirements.
Chosen methodology reinforced continuity of the instructional design and content proficiency
reflected in the personalized learning experience among the DCS stakeholder and TAY learner,
impacting all knowledge domain applications (e.g., choice, interests, needs, and deficiencies).
Also, targeted focus group questions assessed a combination of declarative and procedural
terminology and strategy of the DCS stakeholders for individual and group identification of
impactful approaches used in the personalized, professional instructional design. Lastly, through
focus group discussions and administrative interview questions, conceptual knowledge
assumptions were targeted by accounting for and reinforcing individual and organizational goal
values as it applied to the DCS stakeholders and TAY performance and mastery orientations.
Procedural knowledge influences addressed the stakeholders’ implementation and
integration of effective strategies to promote personalized instruction with varied, differentiated
approaches for performance and mastery goal values (Senko et al., 2011) for the teacher-learner
and TAY learner. For example, it was assumed that the stakeholders will be limited in higher
taxonomical abilities in reading, annotating, synthesizing, and producing measured standards
(Ambrose et al., 2011) for effective TAY modeling. To protect the fidelity of the application and
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
91
evaluation of higher-ordered, esoteric content for college and career readiness cultivation, it was
anticipated that the stakeholders required development in techniques or methodology to translate
the components for effective TAY transfer. Consequently, the stakeholders needed the
opportunity to increase their familiarity with data collection methodology for the analysis of
performance and mastery achievement to refine and direct instructional practices for TAY
assimilation. Lastly, it was assumed that stakeholders were limited in utilizing effective
collaborative strategies to promote engagement and interest (Clark & Estes, 2008) within the
personal and professional learning model for TAY integration. See Table 4: Procedural
Knowledge.
The procedural knowledge assessment targeted the DCS stakeholders’ access and
integration of effective learning procedures and sequential strategies presented in the
instructional design via focus group discussions and administrative interview questions. These
questions were designed to articulate the dynamic, collaborative reciprocity between supervisors,
quasi-administrators, DCS learners, and TAY learners. Results and findings analyzed the
collective tools and strategies used and shared for performance and mastery objectives among
the professional learning community and singular DCS stakeholder for TAY transfer modeling.
Metacognitive knowledge influences addressed the assumed stakeholders’ inexperience
of personal, heuristically driven, reflective discovery techniques concerning new content
meaning and learning strategies for expert to novice transfer (Kirschner et al., 2006). The
assumed stakeholders’ limitation in integrating personalized evaluation of academic strengths,
impeded the efficacy of applying strategic reinforcement and accessing advanced instruction
necessary for establishing strong and challenging metacognitive schema (Ambrose et al., 2011).
Integrating an evaluative protocol of personalized schema was designed to circumvent the
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
92
misapplication of ineffective strategies at every cognitive stage (i.e., declarative, procedural,
metacognitive) (Ambrose et al., 2011). Practicing an evaluative policy, the stakeholders’
assumed limitations of their own goals, interest, judgments, and stereotypes, as it pertains to
learning deficiencies and strengths, fostered a heightened awareness of applicable attributions
and contingencies (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Additionally, it was assumed that stakeholders did not
self-regulate their incremental approach to specific content and integrated schema (Clark &
Estes, 2008), often lacking the knowledge of general strategies to employ critical thinking and
problem-solving techniques. For example, the stakeholders were not practiced in monitoring
progress of improvement in itemized descriptors (e.g., CAASP) and specific intervention
strategies for effective TAY modeling. Consequently, stakeholders did not adjust strategies to
accomplish the most effective access to correct information or skill-based achievement necessary
to avoid redundancy, learning attrition, and mental fatigue (Kirschner et al., 2006) for effective
TAY modeling. See Table 4: Metacognitive Knowledge.
The metacognitive knowledge assessment measured the DCS stakeholders’ awareness
and deliberated reflection on performance improvement and strategically integrated learning
schema. Metacognitive adjustments drove and reinforced goal values (e.g., attainment, utility
goals, and intrinsic) while questioning and generating awareness of useful metacognitive
characteristics: self-regulation, choice, persistence, and confidence. The metacognitive domain
was measured through the DCS stakeholder focus groups and administrative interviews.
Motivation Assessment
Motivation indicators addressed the stakeholders’ choice-selection criteria related to the
“what” and “how” of personalized and professional learning (Eccles, 2010; Gasiewski et al.,
2011; Senko et al., 2011). It was assumed that stakeholders did not utilize a validation model
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
93
aligned to goal values that itemize theoretical and conceptual knowledge limitations inherent
within the personal and professional instructional design. Correlated to goal orientations,
Stakeholders’ needed increased metacognitive, personal awareness of socio-cultural and
emotional influences (Bronfenbrenner, 2009) related to engagement and personalized schema
integration (i.e., attributions and contingencies) (Ryan & Deci, 2000). For example, stakeholders
navigating an unavoidable professional learning-curve were intimidated about the process of
intervention content, procedures, and policies related to employment and efficacy of TAY
transfer. Reinforcing metacognitive schema that defined and activated a heightened cognizance
of personalized schema and values related to motivational factors, strengthened cognitive and
self-confident endurance, impacting sustainability and promoting a high-transfer mode for TAY
modeling. Coordinating KMO factors, stakeholders needed increased training to identify
cognitive, motivational, and pedagogical strategies (Ambrose et al., 2011) for effective TAY
intervention and transfer. Nurturing the learning culture through strategic motivational
management, the stakeholders’ comfortability, safety, comradery, and sense of emotional well-
being directly impacted confidence, choice, effort, and persistence in the collaborative
instructional context (e.g., PLC) (Ambrose et al., 2011; Rueda, 2011). See Table 4:
Motivational.
The selected motivational assessments were guided from Chapter Two’s literature.
Framing focus group discussions and administrative interview questions around goal orientations
(e.g., expectancy, attainment, utility, performance, mastery, etc.) (Senko et al., 2011) and
affectual, motivational variables related to integration and improvement (e.g., self-efficacy,
confidence, self-esteem, and self-regulation) (Bandura, 1986), facilitated the assessment findings
to be applied to a generalized outline of choice, persistence, and mental effort (Rueda, 2011).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
94
Consequently, the selected assessment factors reinforced the organizational and individual
learning values of sustainable, transferable, and long-term practice. Achieving extrinsic and
intrinsic personalized professional development goal values empowered and inspired the
organizational environment while encouraging stakeholder self-improvement (i.e., self-inquiry)
(Clark & Estes, 2008) for authentic TAY modeling. Assumed motivational, self-efficacy factors
via focus group and interview questioning addressed qualitative indicators that defined
personalized learning interactions, shaping data-driven pedagogical strategies (Clark & Estes,
2008). The verified self-confidence of the individual complemented the collaborative learning
experience of the collective stakeholder.
Organization/Culture Context Assessment
Clark and Estes (2008) stated that efficacy in process and policy is foundational to
addressing performance gaps, no matter the competency in “knowledge, skills, and top
motivation” (p. 104). Organizational indicators were inherently pervasive and ubiquitous,
representing the defined context and enforcing accountability measures (Murdock & Anderman,
2006). Specifically, CTS’ professional learning and instructional design relied on the fidelity of
organizational resources. For CTS’ policies and procedures to be effectively communicated and
accessible for integration and measured accountability, relevant and supportive ancillary
supports, services, and resources were required for seamless integration within the cultural
learning context (Conner and Rabosky, 2011). Integrating an organic “intervention campaign,”
CTS needed to reinforce administrative efforts to generate alignment with pre-existing mission
goals or visions to connect to historical mission values. Organizational effort to reflect and
connect past with present goals enabled valued cohesiveness of the campaign as it related to
stakeholder collaboration, cross-disciplinary content alignment, and accountable TAY
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
95
performance and mastery attainment (Senko et al., 2011). Additionally, CTS needed to promote
tangible and intangible incentives for employment retention and cultural sustainability.
Incentivization was directly related to the promotion of motivation, confidence, self-efficacy,
validating the instruction for intrinsic value of the adopted campaign (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Romzek & Dubnick, 1987; Senko et al., 2011). See Table 4: Organizational.
Organizational indicators were guided by Chapter Two’s literature analysis with a
collective review of the organizational environment and selective capacity of impacted
supervisory and managerial stakeholders (Rueda, 2011). Assessment consideration utilized
historical documentation and previous research analysis, focus group discussion, and interview
questions (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004). Assumed relevant indicators included DCS
stakeholder integration, professional learning instructional design concerns and ancillary
resources, clarity and access of organizational mission directives, workday facilitated
professional development resources (e.g., time segments, learning material, instructional
supports, and timely feedback), and differentiated, personalized learning opportunities,
integrated and incrementally delivered.
Consideration via focus group discussions and administrative interviews measured the
organizational climate or culture of the group-home facilities, collectively and independently, to
construct site-based indicators (Clark & Estes, 2008). Assessment measurements evaluated the
present learning structures and collaborative support strategies used to foster collaborative, team-
building opportunities reflective of the macro and micro-learning contexts (Butler et al., 2004;
Lieberman et al., 2016). Lastly, assessment measures critiqued the efficacy and accessibility of
supervisory roles, lead-teachers, and coaches related to professional learning support and
integration (Conley & Darling-Hammond, 2013).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
96
Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection
CTS’ DCS employees were the selected stakeholder population for this research design.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) state, “The investigator wants to discover, understand, and gain
insight and therefore must select a sample from which the most can be learned” (p. 96). As a
result, the DCS stakeholders perform various instructional and non-instructional responsibilities
due to the close and consistent proximity of the TAY learner within the STRTP residential
facilities. The DCS stakeholder represents a surrogate, parental role that offers a facilitated
structure, guidance, motivation, and encouragement with varied instructional expertise for TAY
modeling; however, direct and certified pedagogical experience is often a noncompulsory
employment requirement among many of CTS’ job prerequisites. To protect the validity of the
sample selection, it was anticipated that random levels of KMO exposure and influence exist
among the combined DCS employees stationed primarily in the TAY residential homes.
Semantically, the DCS and the staff job descriptions were collectively sampled with greater
focus on TAY daily access in obligatory instructional roles, reinforcing expert to novice transfer.
Sampling
The DCS stakeholder was strategically selected as a purposive sample with a
convenience setting defined by criteria of primary job duties assigned to serving the TAY
STRTP, group home learner. Document analysis cross-referenced with length of tenure,
experience, and certification were catalogued to reference correlated criteria within the purposive
sampling with random assignment for stratification capability in future research designs:
Criterion 1. Length of tenure at CTS: 1-2 years, 3-4 years, 5-10 years, 11 +
Criterion 2. Length of experience in related role: 1-2 years, 3-4 years, 5-10 years, 11 +
Criterion 3. Instructional certification or credentialing: CTS, County, State, National
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
97
Table 4. Summary of DCS Stakeholder for Validating/Assessing the Assumed Influences
DCS KMO Stakeholder Assumptions Validation Strategies
Knowledge (Declarative)
• Stakeholders do not have factual knowledge of cognitive science, types of
knowledge, and learning barriers to proficiently intercede for TAY population
• Stakeholders do not know the factual terminology of pedagogical instructional
strategies, designs, and complex content (e.g., literary terms used to provide
objective and subjective formative and summative intervention strategies) to
proficiently promote TAY performance
• Stakeholders do not have factual and conceptual knowledge and application
of pedagogical or statistical research measurements (e.g., interviews, surveys,
quizzes) to qualitatively measure abstract values of motivation, content
usability, interest, effective test taking strategies, self-regulation, self-
confidence for TAY transfer
• Stakeholders do not know the implications of TAY high school graduation
standardized test scoring (e.g., CAASP) in relationship to skill-based level
descriptors and college or post-secondary skill-based skills for employment

Knowledge (Procedural)
• Stakeholders do not know effective strategies to promote personalized
instruction with varied, differentiated approaches to promote performance and
mastery goal values
• Stakeholders do not know how to read, annotate, synthesize, and produce an
effective product based on specific measured standards for effective TAY
modeling
• Stakeholders do not possess the knowledge of the techniques or methodology
to identify complex content (e.g., persona, audience, action, purpose) to
translate the components for synthetic and evaluative understanding related
college and career readiness standards for effective TAY modeling
• Stakeholders are not familiar with data collection methodology for analysis of
performance and mastery achievement to refine and direct instructional
practices
• Stakeholders do not know effective collaborative strategies to promote
engagement and interest within the context of personal and professional
learning for effective TAY modeling

Knowledge (Metacognitive)
• Stakeholders do not know how to reflect on their own discovery of new
content meaning and learning strategies for effective TAY modeling
• Stakeholders do not know how to evaluate their own strengths and challenges
within relationship to strategizing and uncovering content and personalized
schema related to all levels of cognitive taxonomy
• Stakeholders are not aware of their own (goals, interest, judgments,
stereotypes, etc.) in relationship to their individual learning deficiencies and
strengths related to attributions and contingencies
• Stakeholders do not self-regulate their incremental approach to specific
content and integrated schema
• Stakeholders do not have knowledge about the general strategies they use for
learning—thinking and problem solving (lack of self-awareness)
Document Analysis

Focus Groups
Discussions

Administrative
Interviews

Document Analysis

Focus Groups
Discussions

Administrative
Interviews

Document Analysis

Focus Groups
Discussions

Administrative
Interviews

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
98
Table 4 continued. Summary of DCS Stakeholder for Validating Assumed Influences
DCS KMO Stakeholder Assumptions Validation Strategies
Knowledge (Metacognitive) contd.
• Stakeholders do not monitor progress of improvement in itemized descriptors
and specific intervention strategies for effective TAY modeling
• Stakeholders do not adjust strategies to accomplish the most effective access
to correct information or skill-based achievement to avoid redundancy,
learning attrition, and mental fatigue for effective TAY modeling

Motivation
• Stakeholders are not developed in choice selection criteria to address the
‘what’ and ‘how’ of the personalized and professional learning
• Stakeholders do not validate nor how to use theoretical/conceptual knowledge
introduced in the personal and professional instructional design: goal values
• Stakeholders are not developed in personal awareness of socio-cultural and
emotional influences related to engagement and personalized schema
integration: attributions and contingencies
• Stakeholders are intimidated about the process of intervention content,
procedures and policies related to employment and efficacy of TAY transfer
• Stakeholders lack a heightened awareness of personalized schema and values
• Stakeholders are not self-confident to strategically integrate personalized
schema for achievement and TAY modeling transfer
• Stakeholders are not developed to identify cognitive, motivational, and
pedagogical strategies for effective TAY intervention and transfer
• Stakeholders are not comfortable or confident in collaborative instructional
contexts (e.g., PLC) for effective personalized performance and effective
modeling for TAY transfer

Organizational
• CTS’ professional learning and instructional designs need to be supported
with the fidelity of resources
• CTS’ policies and procedures need to be effectively communicated are
accessible for integration and measured accountability
• CTS’ “intervention campaign” needs to be articulated for alignment with pre-
existing mission goals/visions to connect an historical context
• CTS needs to develop a cohesiveness of the campaign as it relates to
stakeholder collaboration, cross-disciplinary content alignment, and
accountable TAY performance and mastery attainment
• CTS needs to promote tangible and intangible incentives for employment
retention and cultural sustainment
• CTS needs to address continuity related to professional development and the
disconnected stakeholder schedules/resources for consistent collaboration and
effective, timely feedback affecting the fluidity of the program
• CTS needs to acknowledge and routinely integrate strategies that promote
motivation, confidence, self-efficacy to validate the instruction for intrinsic
value of the adopted campaign

Focus Groups
Discussions

Administrative
Interviews

Document Analysis
Focus Groups
Discussions

Administrative
Interviews

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
99
Though the research design was structured to protect the confidentiality of the document
analysis, focus groups, and interviews, a single-stage sampling model was used given that the
researcher had access to the sampled stakeholder demographic details. Creswell and Creswell
(2018) and Fink (2017) were the primary resources used to guide the research focus groups and
interviews. Table Five represents an outline of the purposive sample, convenience setting via the
randomly assigned focus group sample. For example, the following sample design was used in a
qualitative, cross-sectional designed focus group discussion (Fink, 2017) measuring motivational
indicators with a variety of question types. The focus group discussion development used
dedicated online resources (e.g., Qualtrics) to create, capture, and analyze results. Illustrated in
Table 5.
Three focus groups of 5 members (n = 15) via an online, virtual platform and interactive
narrative discussion (e.g., Zoom Inc.) were used independently of residential employment,
comprised of varied DCS stakeholders from four separate CTS STRTP group home facilities.
Creswell and Creswell (2018) refer to the value of collaborative models for viable data collection
with varied sampling interactivity for profitable, ethical, and active dialogue, creating ownership
and affecting the fidelity of authorship in the research findings: Involving individuals
collaboratively in the research may provide reciprocity, . . . . engag[ing] participants as
coresearchers throughout the research process, such as the design, data collection and analysis,
report writing, and dissemination of the findings (p. 94).
Efficient and engaging focus group discussions were driven by a strategically crafted and
progressive agenda that applied “consistency . . . because it is in comparison and contrast that
themes and patterns emerge from the data” (Krueger & Casey, 2009, p. 60). Guiding the focus
group discussions, preformatted questions addressed prior professional learning experiences,
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
100
present deficiencies, organizational policies, and qualitative dialogue relevant to the fidelity of
TAY resources. The diversity of DCS stakeholders’ experience, quasi-administrative roles,
education, dedicated responsibilities, and individual goal orientations accessed from four
residences justified data triangulation to inform causes and solutions—resourced from document
analysis, focus groups, and interview instruments. The advantage of data triangulation guarded
against variations in the data and strengthened sampling participation, affecting the validation,
value, and application of the research results (Patton, 2002).
Table 5. Purposive Focus Group Sample: Convenience Setting
Participants Sample Statistics

DCS Population

94

Confidence Level

95%

Confidence Interval +/– 4%

Sample Size

15

Recruitment
The purposive selection of CTS’ DCS stakeholder participants were contacted through
email or direct managerial invitation with approval from CTS’ organizational administration and
delivered personally or electronically to selected personnel. The focus group model framed and
articulated the proposed commitments and general questioning related to TAY resource
development. The focus group video-conferencing and the four separate selected administrative
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
101
interviews were recorded to capture comprehensive content and were disclosed in the initial
invitation. All supervisory management and sample participants were informed of the research
design’s commitment to confidentiality of the research findings. See Appendix A, B, E, & F.
Data Collection
The following research design relied on the instrumentation of focus groups, interviews,
and document analysis. Three independent research strategies sought to implement collective
data triangulation, addressing instrument reliability, threats to internal validity, and external
generalizability (Creswell & Creswell, 2018, p. 94; Mcleod, 2018). Seeking approval from the
University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) was a necessary and
mandatory process prior to any implementation of methodology or operationalization of data.
Focus Groups
Focus Group Protocol. As stated, the DCS stakeholder was selected as a purposive
sample in a convenience setting with random assignment defined by criteria of primary job
duties assigned to serving the TAY STRTP, group home learner. Statistical software (e.g., SPSS)
was used to generate simple random assignment for each of the three focus group designations
with five members per group (Johansson, 2011; Salkind, 2016). Random assignment ensured a
fair representation of varied stakeholders in each of the focus groups to protect internal validity
measures and external validity application beyond this research design (Salkind, 2016) (see
Appendix B & C). For the focus group discussion, the researcher preformatted a script with
detailed and targeted open-ended questions to solicit discussion, response, and feedback. The
researcher functioned as facilitator by communicating the focus group’s purpose, addressing
questions and concerns, providing context to the integral research objective and importance, and
monitoring the productivity of the focus group process (see appendix D).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
102
Data collection. Three focus groups were used with a membership of five for a total of
15 respondents (Fink, 2017). Each focus group session was allotted approximately 30-40 minutes
via an online video-conferencing platform (e.g., Zoom Inc.). The researcher was responsible for
directing the focus group agenda, addressing questions and concerns, communicating
instructions, and managing progress and time constraints. The researcher reminded each focus
group that the video-conference was to be recorded to capture responses in full context as
detailed in the original invitation.
Datagain Inc. was used to transcribe each focus group content at the conclusion of each
session. Each focus group video-conference (e.g., Zoom Inc.) was conducted via a computer
interface, edited in Imovie software, voice content separated into a digital file (e.g., .mp3), and
the separate voice file uploaded into the Datagain Inc. portal. The results were organized in a
Google datasheet for participant correlation, alphabetizing, and possible binary coding for
exporting into statistical software (i.e., SPSS). Once into the designated SPSS software,
extraneous variables (e.g., participant identification numbers and timestamps) were removed and
combined into other variables indicating SPSS value identification (Salkind, 2016).
Interviews
Interview protocol. The organizational administrative interview model was guided by
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) recommendations and parameters, utilizing a variety of formal and
informal techniques and components. Informal elements of the interview design were utilized for
extended conversation overlapping into different KMO domains relative to the initial question/s
(see Appendix E & F). For authenticity and buy-in, the interview questioning exercised open-
ended questioning, allowing for application and holistic phrasing from each respondent. The
researcher functioned as interviewer by communicating the interview’s purpose, addressing
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
103
questions and concerns, providing context to the integral research objective and importance, and
monitoring the productivity of the interview process. According to Creswell and Creswell
(2018), “In qualitative interviews, the researcher conducts face-to-face interviews with
participants . . .” (p. 187). With consideration to recent social restrictions, the face-to-face
interviews were conducted online via video-conferencing (see Appendix G).
Data collection. The researcher designed and conducted four interviews with selected
administrative respondents to capitalize on organizational perspectives related to management
and accountability of TAY services and resources. The time and location were organized and
conducted via online video-conferencing (e.g., Zoom, Inc). Approximately 30 minutes were
allotted to conduct each interview. The respondents were reminded of the initial permission to
record the content in the video-conference interview to capture and protect the fidelity of the
original context. Datagain Inc. was used to transcribe each interview content at the conclusion of
each session.
As stated in the interview protocol, each administrative interview (e.g., Zoom Inc.) was
conducted virtually via computer interface, edited in Imovie software, voice content separated
into a digital file (e.g., .mp3), and the voice file uploaded into the Datagain Inc. portal. The
results were organized in a Google datasheet for participant correlation, alphabetizing, and
possible binary coding for exporting into statistical software (i.e., SPSS). Using SPSS for data
collection and analysis, nominal string data identified the stakeholders with a numerical code
(Fink, 2017), last and first name, and residential group home. Once into the designated SPSS
software, extraneous variables (e.g., participant identification numbers and timestamps) were
removed or combined into other ID variables (Salkind, 2016). Capitalizing on varied DCS
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
104
partnerships, each resource was tabulated in binary form for aligning related document analysis
data.
Document Analysis
CTS’ prior research documentation was an essential variable in coordinating the present
research design objective/s with past, organizational mission-driven efforts that serve the
targeted TAY population. Attempting to justify the present, seemingly disconnected research
study was authenticated by referencing national, state, and CTS specific data that helped to
clarify a comprehensive historical continuum while inspiring the existing cultural ownership of
the present participants and strengthening solutions through triangulated data. Online
documentation, published data, and professional learning policies fortified continuity and
cohesiveness from the previous content to the present research design.
Data Analysis
Varied approaches were used in the interviews, focus groups, and document data
analysis. Interviews and focus groups were done via video-conferencing with the verbal content
transcribed for KMO analysis. The data from the focus group content were codified into binary
labels, organized, and correlated with the interview data for trend and outlier identification.
Document analysis contextualized the data and validated KMO assumptions, causes, and
solutions generated from the interview and focus group instrumentation (see Table 6).
Trustworthiness. Trustworthiness is at the center of any viable research. The research
design framed solutions generated from the cross-sectional focus group discussions,
administrative interviews, and document analysis data, providing “internally consistent”
inquiries with reliability within the measure (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha) (Fink, 2017). To reinforce
the fidelity of the research design concerning trustworthiness, the following filters were used:
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
105
data triangulation, focus groups, and document analysis; confidentiality of focus groups and
interviews; and informant feedback or “member checking” (Creswell & Creswell, 2018, p. 208).
Role of Researcher
As an independent researcher, data collection needed to be complemented by availability,
professionalism, accuracy, honesty, and clarity to protect the fidelity of the stakeholder and
organizational involvement. The independent researcher’s responsibility to conduct the following
Gap Analysis study was to protect the altruistic value of the findings to seek viable, generational
solutions, guiding TAY organizational resources for TAY independence and sustainability. The
researcher’s simple, purposive sample affecting the cross-sectional focus groups, interviews, and
document analysis with computerized random focus group assignment was complemented with
the researcher’s lack of professional or prior relationship to the CTS organization and DCS
stakeholders, addressing “personal” bias concerns in the research design. Communicating the
researcher’s role as an independent, facilitating examiner validating quantitative and qualitative
deficiencies in available and effective TAY resources and services, strengthened the likelihood
of increased respondent involvement, research design efficacy, and reinforced trustworthiness of
the researcher and confidentiality of relevant findings. Role of researcher:
• Anonymity was reassured when appropriate in the research design concerning individual,
collective, and summative responses, results, and proposed solutions.
• Organizational approval was used to access CTS’ Human Resource database for simple
random selection, identifying appropriate members from the population used for
focus groups and interview instruments.
• Orientation invite and research design emphasized that participation was strictly
voluntary with the highest value placed on verifying viable TAY solutions to integrate
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
106
and refine available graduation and college and career readiness resources for eventual
independence.
• Access to document analysis was used by permission of the CTS organizational
leadership or publicly available studies related to TAY research.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations
An assumed limitation of the following research design was the proportion of available
and applicable DCS stakeholder participants to pursue measuring from an acceptable sample size
of 15 (Fink, 2017; Krueger & Casey, 2009). The total DCS population was estimated to be 94,
recognizing the specific research design desires to focus relevant DCS with the direct and
consistent access to the TAY population related to KMO solutions. Generalizability of the study
took into account the sample size, location of the research design, context of STRTP, group
home facilities, and transitory TAY population factors. Sample representation recognized the
DCS stakeholder engages in a variety of daily services with specific job descriptions with
relative contact and reinforcement to varied KMO strategies and supports. However, considering
the unique TAY attributes and randomized assignment to local STRTP, group home facilities,
generalized application was validated due to the common variables that define a TAY population
and the DCS stakeholder placement to parallel benchmarking comparisons (Conley & Darling-
Hammond, 2013). Additionally, the convenience setting with a strategic, purposive sample did
not apply random sampling to provide equal and fair involvement; however, in the context of a
localized CTS organization combined with the scope and sequence of the DCS stakeholder and
TAY learner, the convenience was more applicable to engage all willing personnel. It is noted
that stratified content was collected via instrumentation entries. The initial choice to not stratify
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
107
the sample in the research design focused intently on factors related to the implementation of the
organizational professional learning content as a combined DCS stakeholder sharing a common
description of consistent interaction with the female TAY learner. It is a point of
recommendation to consider future research with strategic stakeholder stratification. Another
limitation was that interviews not conducted in a one-on-one design were limited through an
online, virtual platform “rather than the natural field setting” (Creswell & Creswell, 2018, p.
188). Also, limitations for both the focus groups and individual interviews, Creswell and
Creswell (2018) indicate that interviews “provide indirect information filtered through the views
of the interviewees, . . . . [the] researcher’s presence might be bias, [and] not all people are
equally articulate and perceptive” (p. 188). Lastly, the research window was designed to take less
than three weeks to implement. Consequently, the Kirkpatrick Evaluation Model was utilized as
a directive resource integrated within the larger KMO-centered personalized, professional
learning paradigm for the CTS organization to incrementally implement guided consultation
from the literature review and research findings.
Delimitations
CTS’ varied resources serving diverse social contexts allowed for the delimitation of the
specifically chosen STRTP, group home facilities with a targeted population sharing rigid
criteria for residential qualifications. The refined context of TAY learners and applicable CTS
employees restricted the scope and sequence of the research design to protect the study’s
objectives, defined variables, research questions (RQ’s), refined assumptions, and validated
solutions. Localizing the study to Los Angeles County increased benchmarking validity (Conley
& Darling-Hammond, 2013) and strengthened generalizable findings to other organizational
frameworks and the local TAY stakeholder. CTS’ hiring process and existing partnership
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
108
paradigm reinforced the exclusive selection of participants chosen from one umbrella
organization. The predefined employment process and shared cultural identity of the
organizational mission and vision generated a profitable homogeneity in goal orientations among
the related constituency (Senko et al., 2011). The combination of the diversity of research
instrumentation and the detailed criteria of the TAY learning context advocated for the extended
application of the research findings, proposed solutions, and validated procedures. (For a list of
term definitions and acronyms, see Appendix N).

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
109
Table 6. Summary of DCS Assumed Causes and Validation Strategy
DCS KMO Stakeholder Assumptions Focus Groups (FG)
Document Analysis (DA)
Interviews (I)
Knowledge (Declarative)
• Stakeholders do not have factual knowledge of cognitive science, types of
knowledge, and learning barriers to proficiently intercede for TAY population
• Stakeholders do not know the factual terminology of pedagogical instructional
strategies, designs, and complex content (e.g., literary terms used to provide
objective and subjective formative and summative intervention strategies) to
proficiently promote TAY performance
• Stakeholders do not have factual and conceptual knowledge and application
of pedagogical or statistical research measurements (e.g., interviews, surveys,
quizzes) to qualitatively measure abstract values of motivation, content
usability, interest, effective test taking strategies, self-regulation, self-
confidence for TAY transfer
• Stakeholders do not know the implications of TAY high school graduation
standardized test scoring (e.g., CAASP) in relationship to skill-based level
descriptors and college or post-secondary skill-based skills for employment

Knowledge (Procedural)
• Stakeholders do not know effective strategies to promote personalized
instruction with varied, differentiated approaches to promote performance and
mastery goal values
• Stakeholders do not know how to read, annotate, synthesize, and produce an
effective product based on specific measured standards for effective modeling
• Stakeholders do not possess the knowledge of the techniques or methodology
to identify complex content (e.g., persona, audience, action, purpose) to
translate the components for synthetic and evaluative understanding related
college and career readiness standards for effective TAY modeling
• Stakeholders are not familiar with data collection methodology for analysis of
performance and mastery achievement to refine and direct instructional
practices
• Stakeholders do not know effective collaborative strategies to promote
engagement and interest within the context of personal and professional
learning for effective TAY modeling
Knowledge (Metacognitive)
• Stakeholders do not know how to reflect on their own discovery of new
content meaning and learning strategies for effective TAY modeling
• Stakeholders do not know how to evaluate their own strengths and challenges
within relationship to strategizing and uncovering content and personalized
schema related to all levels of cognitive taxonomy
• Stakeholders are not aware of their own (goals, interest, judgments,
stereotypes, etc.) in relationship to their individual learning deficiencies and
strengths related to attributions and contingencies
• Stakeholders do not self-regulate their incremental approach to specific
content and integrated schema
• Stakeholders do not have knowledge about the general strategies they use for
learning—thinking and problem solving (lack of self-awareness)
FG; I
FG; DA; I

FG; DA; I

FG; I

FG; I

FG; I
FG; I

FG; DA; I

FG; DA; I

FG; I
FG; I

FG; I
FG; I
FG; I

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
110
Table 6 continued. Summary of Assumed Causes and Validation Strategy
DCS KMO Stakeholder Assumptions Focus Groups (FG
Document Analysis (DA)
Interviews (I)
Knowledge (Metacognitive) contd.
• Stakeholders do not monitor progress of improvement in itemized descriptors
and specific intervention strategies for effective TAY modeling
• Stakeholders do not adjust strategies to accomplish the most effective access
to correct information or skill-based achievement to avoid redundancy,
learning attrition, and mental fatigue for effective TAY modeling
Motivation
• Stakeholders are not developed in choice selection criteria to address the
‘what’ and ‘how’ of the personalized and professional learning
• Stakeholders do not validate nor how to use theoretical/conceptual knowledge
introduced in the personal and professional instructional design: goal values
• Stakeholders are not developed in personal awareness of socio-cultural and
emotional influences related to engagement and personalized schema
integration: attributions and contingencies
• Stakeholders are intimidated about the process of intervention content,
procedures and policies related to employment and efficacy of TAY transfer
• Stakeholders lack a heightened awareness of personalized schema and values
• Stakeholders are not self-confident to strategically integrate personalized
schema for achievement and TAY modeling transfer
• Stakeholders are not developed to identify cognitive, motivational, and
pedagogical strategies for effective TAY intervention and transfer
• Stakeholders are not comfortable or confident in collaborative instructional
contexts (e.g., PLC) for effective personalized performance and effective
modeling for TAY transfer
Organizational
• CTS’ professional learning and instructional designs need to be supported
with the fidelity of resources
• CTS’ policies and procedures need to be effectively communicated are
accessible for integration and measured accountability
• CTS’ “intervention campaign” needs to be articulated for alignment with pre-
existing mission goals/visions to connect an historical context
• CTS needs to develop a cohesiveness of the campaign as it relates to
stakeholder collaboration, cross-disciplinary content alignment, and
accountable TAY performance and mastery attainment
• CTS needs to promote tangible and intangible incentives for employment
retention and cultural sustainment
• CTS needs to address continuity related to professional development and the
disconnected stakeholder schedules/resources for consistent collaboration and
effective, timely feedback affecting the fluidity of the program
• CTS needs to acknowledge and routinely integrate strategies that promote
motivation, confidence, self-efficacy to validate the instruction for intrinsic
value of the adopted campaign
FG; I
FG; I

FG; I

FG; I
FG; I

FG; DA; I
FG; I
FG; I
FG; I
FG; I

FG; DA; I
FG; DA; I
FG; DA; I
FG; I

FG; DA; I
FG; DA; I
FG; DA; I
FG; DA; I
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
111
CHAPTER FOUR:
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of this study is to analyze and evaluate knowledge, motivation, and
organizational (i.e., KMO Gap Analysis) factors (e.g., educational, psychological, and social)
impacting CTS’ STRTP, group home female Transitional Age Youth (TAY) high school
graduation rates and college and career readiness for eventual autonomy. The following research
design is focused as an innovation research Gap Analysis with the intent of identifying and
utilizing the necessary services, resources, and educational strategies (i.e., professional and
personalized learning) offered to this specific TAY foster care youth population to achieve
sustainable, long-term independence.
Identifying problems to systemic issues is a call “to find ways to heighten . . .
awareness—to fill in the gaps” (Catmull & Wallace, 2014, p. 169). To problem-solve learning
and/or policy integration, there is a need for clarity, a transparency of assumed organizational
limitations by shortening up ineffective and idle practices. This terse revision to maximize
productivity is reliant on the efforts of all stakeholders. Change is the identification of the
“unseen” and understanding of its “nature” (i.e, public education) (Catmull & Wallace, 2014, p.
169). Senko et al. (2011) remind educational practitioners that the system demands concrete
performance goal measuring while abstract mastery or intrinsic motivational goals are an
undefined luxury. Affective pedagogical approaches exist to stabilize the “crystallized” content
(i.e., rote-memory) to promote the “fluidity” of creative application (i.e., novel material)
(Medina, 2014, 57), and to fill “structural holes” inherent within the preexisting system
(Hargadon, 2003, p. 61).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
112
CTS’ varied resources and context-specific clientele offer diverse, independent services;
however, the STRTP, group home female residences, though sponsored under the organization’s
broader mission objectives, are administered locally with autonomous charitable funding
allocation. Consequently, residential operations and organizational personal and professional
learning development are localized and customizable to each residential facility.
To reinforce a commitment to excellence and alignment to all “federal, state, and county
regulations governing MediCal service delivery” (CTS, 2020), CTS’ programs and employees
are subject to compliance regulations. CTS is held accountable to an integrated Program Quality
Improvement System with adopted compliance protocol (e.g., Title VI, HIPAA, standards of
conduct, quality assurance, CQI workgroups, compliance policies and procedures, retention of
records and information systems, performance plans, auditing, governmental corrective action,
disciplinary procedures, non-compliance reporting, and cultural competency plans) (CTS, 2020).
Additionally, CTS’ accreditations and affiliations include the Council of Accreditation,
California Council of Community Mental Health Agencies, California Alliance of Child and
Family Service, Western Association of Schools and Colleges, American Association of
Children’s Residential Centers, Child Welfare League of America, and CalChamber (CTS,
2020). These policies and accreditations impact the organizational and local administrative
decisions that influence the stakeholder’s KMO factors and TAY learning transfer, impacting
personalized and professional learning design and integration.
Operating for over 25 years, CTS’ mission states that services are dedicated to practicing
and integrating new strategies, new services, and maintaining its obligations to serving at-risk
kids in the most specialized, integrated, social-based environments as possible. CTS (2020) is to
act as an exemplary foundation that practices sustained improvement, cultivating excellence and
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
113
compliance. CTS (2020) is dedicated to their commitment to changing the lives of foster care
children by providing access to exceptional resources and services. To best serve the clientele
entrusted to CTS, all decision making, policies, and standards of conduct are mirrored to the
responsibility of assisting CTS’ DCS personnel to grow personally and professionally by
nurturing a culture that is positive, supportive, and focused on continuous learning. Lastly, CTS
(2020) is centered on relationships and results. An analysis to provide continuity and cohesion to
the preexisting organizational structure and specific program efforts (i.e., STRTP home facilities)
will reinforce CTS’ mission of relational health and efficacy while achieving sustainable,
efficient, and tangible KMO results for TAY independence. CTS (2020), as an organization, is a
company who helps at-risk kids and families participate to be successful members of society.
CTS’ vision focuses on providing safe, nourishing, and healthy surroundings. CTS resources
emotional and behavioral obstacles to aid in the opportunity for sustainable transition beyond
foster care services. CTS is dedicated to offer tangible answers for helping foster care children to
achieve academic, social, emotional, and psychological success for TAY autonomy (2020).
The complexity of achieving tangible, concrete TAY academic and social autonomy is
related to the localized control of TAY residents. The DCS stakeholder’s employment
satisfaction, attrition, volunteering, and professional development are relevant; however, the
variables impacting consistent and progressive TAY residence and academic achievement are
indicative of the inconsistencies correlated with mandated reporting and CTS’ residential
jurisdiction. TAY learners possess the ability to “come and go” without legal oversight and
impactful ramifications. Due to the limitations in local control and consistent residence of the
TAY learner, the efficacy of CTS’ TAY resources and services are directly linked to the
aforementioned mission values concerning nurturing culture and fostering relationships.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
114
Cicero’s statement addresses the want and accessibility of educational achievement: The
authority of those who want to teach is often an obstacle to those who want to learn (as stated in
Uzun (2012). Focusing resource development and cultural value through the DCS stakeholder
are the most stable and proficient strategies to transfer related skills to the TAY learner. It will
be foundational to amplify relationships and cultural “currency,” the “values and the like of
society, regardless of individual predispositions” (Uzun, 2012). Academic and social progress is
a collective response impacting the individual learner’s KMO factors. As Uzun (2012) states,
“Education is provided to classrooms rather than to individuals who not only have to breathe the
same air but who are also to absorb and internalize the same things . . .” The objective should
center on development of the available community of learners, no matter the job description.
Impacting and inspiring individual “household” members is essential to extrinsic and intrinsic
goal orientations (Senko et al., 2011) in addressing KMO gaps to achieve sustainable TAY
emancipation. A collaborative, collective approach to involve all relevant stakeholders becomes
a concerted ethical duty to address identified KMO barriers affecting TAY long-term autonomy.
Cultivating, monitoring, and maintaining academic and cultural fluency (e.g., personal
and professional learning designs) and identifying and addressing relevant KMO gaps are,
consequentially, measured by attaining independent, autonomous college and career skills and
achievements beyond TAY residential care. CTS is challenged with the legal limitations and
available resources for effective monitoring beyond residential foster care services (Brown &
Wilderson, 2010). Cultural cultivation will be foundational for extending contact, relationships,
and support beyond conventional legal boundaries. CTS, as an organization, is committed to the
long-term value of the TAY learner, a necessary ethical legacy for reputable influence as an
effective and exemplary model for sustainable achievement.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
115
Chapter Four addresses present KMO components related to personal and professional
learning integration and refinement. KMO gap analysis identifies related tenets using a
triangulation of methodology and instrumentation of CTS’ existing structures and available DCS
stakeholder focus groups, administrative interviews, and relevant document analysis (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). Identification and assumed correlation and/or causation are addressed to
articulate factors impacting CTS KMO factors relevant to DCS expertise to TAY novice transfer
(Clark, 2012). The objective of KMO gap identification is part of continued dedication to
progress and refinement of quantitative and, often, innovative solutions aiding the entire CTS
learning community (e.g., differentiated instruction and data-driven personal and professional
learning strategies). As stated, production of modified, tailored, and refined KMO adjustments
impact learner-engagement, generalize professional learning designs, inspire and strengthen
TAY resources and localized learning community (i.e., CTS DCS and TAY learners), and
encourage pertinent constituents required for immediate and long-term success (e.g., local
agencies, educational services, charitable foundations).
Chapter Two presents a review of the literature as a resource of past, present, and
suggested studies related to personal and professional learning with targeted KMO variables.
CTS’ STRTP, group home TAY residential facilities are analyzed, as indicated, in Chapter
Three’s research parameters and methodology in light of KMO factors shaping the efficacy of
the DCS stakeholder’s services and modeling for TAY transfer.
Chapter Two’s Literature review provides historical continuity and research direction of
KMO Gap Analysis. Subsequently, KMO variables produced categorical “possible and assumed
influences” with evaluated “actual or validated influences” as factors related to stakeholder
performance and achievement. It is noted that the DCS stakeholder is the singular focus of this
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
116
research design with the intent to model and extend personal and professional learning strategies
specific to KMO awareness as viable resources for TAY transfer. Additionally, the
organizational factors from administrative perspectives are evaluated to create awareness and
provide a cohesive analysis relevant to organizational influence on the selected DCS stakeholder.
As indicated in the identification and importance of the problem in Chapter One and
reinforced in Chapter Two’s Literature Review, California TAY high school graduation rates
report a deficiency compared to non-TAY learners. Low levels of TAY graduation rates also
suggest a lack of competence in college and career readiness skills necessary for sustainable
independence. There is a need to address possible KMO impediments impacting TAY learners
related to the present and available academic and social resources designed to create opportunity
and personal value. An analysis of the personal and professional learning paradigms in place for
the DCS stakeholder’s services is directed to refine professional growth highlighting
differentiated engagement, interest, value, and preferential choice for all applicable stakeholders
(Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Goddard et al., 2014; Howland & Wedman, 2004). Chapter
Four discusses the collected data synthesized from three qualitative research instruments: DCS
Focus Groups, Administrative Interviews; and Document Analysis.
The first Research Question (RQ) addresses CTS’ DCS stakeholder’s existing personal
and professional protocol to provide the Knowledge (e.g., pedagogical strategies, cognitive
science understanding, declarative, procedural, and metacognitive awareness) to serve the needs
of the TAY learner. The second RQ addresses CTS’ DCS stakeholder’s identification and
integration of variables impacting Motivation (e.g., socio-cultural and socio-emotional
contingencies, attributions, and goal orientations) to serve the needs of the TAY learner. The
Gap Analysis utilizes three components influencing organizational performance: Knowledge,
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
117
Motivation, and Organization. The third RQ addresses CTS’ Organizational management
paradigm that provides the necessary KMO resources and services affecting the DCS
stakeholder’s personal and performance learning impacting culture and skill transference to the
TAY learner. The Gap Analysis Framework (i.e,, Clark & Estes, 2008) identifies “performance
goals . . . [that] measure the gap[s] between current achievement and desire performance goal
levels” while anticipating the “cost-benefit of closing each gap” (Clark & Estes 2008, p. 21).
To offer and perform solutions for identified “gaps,” a strategic, integrated, and
incremental evaluative protocol is used to measure efficacy and achievement while considering
differentiated choices related to stakeholder performance and feedback. The TAY learner’s needs
focus on strategically and successfully reinforcing KMO requirements for independent
sustainability initially gauged by high school graduation rate increase and college and career
readiness competence.
Participants
This Gap Analysis research design triangulated qualitative data using stakeholder focus
groups, administrative interviews, and document analysis. CTS’ DCS employees are the selected
stakeholder due to the various instructional and non-instructional responsibilities serving the
TAY learner. To protect the validity of the sample selection and protect the fidelity of KMO
analysis related to participation, the DCS stakeholder is strategically selected as a purposive
sample with a convenience setting defined by criteria of primary job duties assigned to serving
the TAY STRTP, group home learner. Document analysis is used to cross-reference tenure,
experience, and certification within the purposive sampling and random assignment for
stratification value:

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
118
Criterion 1. Length of tenure at CTS: 1-2 years, 3-4 years, 5-10 years, 11 +
Criterion 2. Length of experience in related role: 1-2 years, 3-4 years, 5-10 years, 11 +
Criterion 3. Instructional certification or credentialing: CTS, County, State, National
Administrative interview participation, focus group recruitment, and introductory emails
outlined the research’s parameters, intent, and value. The purposive selection of CTS’ DCS
stakeholder participants and administrative staff were contacted via email or direct managerial
invitation. Invitation recruitment addressed introduction, importance, and purpose of the research
design with language and clarification of the voluntary nature of both focus group and interview
interaction—the qualitative, subjective nature of participant responses. Each focus group session
was given a window of 30-40 minutes via an online video-conferencing platform (e.g., Zoom
Inc.).
Document analysis centered on organizational procedures and requirements related to
personal and professional learning obligations and development. Primary documentation was
derived from CTS’ refined Program Quality Improvement System. Document analysis was
rooted in compliance protocol regarding county, state, and federal regulations (e.g., Title VI,
HIPAA, standards of conduct, quality assurance, CQI workgroups, retention of records and
information systems, performance plans, auditing, governmental corrective action, disciplinary
procedures, non-compliance reporting, and cultural competency plans).
Three focus groups of five members (n = 15) via an online, virtual platform and
interactive narrative discussion (e.g., Zoom Inc.) were used independently of residential
employment, comprised of varied DCS stakeholders from four separate CTS STRTP group home
facilities. The Principal Researcher facilitated the focus group discussion protocol to minimize
confusion and provide clarity or commentary on any targeted items; however, to preserve the
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
119
fluidity and candidness of the focus group discussion, stakeholder engagement was only limited
by time restrictions (i.e., 30-40 minutes). The Principal Researcher reminded the respondents of
the initial permission to record the content in the video-conference focus group to capture and
protect the fidelity of the original context.
Four administrative interviews were conducted to capitalize on organizational
perspectives related to management and accountability of TAY services and resources.
Approximately 30 minutes were allotted to conduct each interview. The time and location were
organized and conducted via online video-conferencing (e.g., Zoom, Inc). As stated, the
organizational administrative interview model is guided by Merriam’s and Tisdell’s (2016)
recommendations and parameters, utilizing a variety of formal and informal techniques and
components. Informal elements of the interview design utilized overlapping questions measuring
different KMO domains relative to the initial question/s (see Appendix E & F). For authenticity
and buy-in, the interview questioning used open-ended questioning, allowing for application and
holistic phrasing from each respondent.
The researcher functioned as the interviewer by communicating the interview’s purpose,
addressing questions and concerns, providing context to the integral research objective and
importance, and monitoring the productivity of the interview process. With consideration to
recent social restrictions, the face-to-face interviews were conducted online via video-
conferencing (see Appendix G). The Principal Researcher reminded the respondents of the initial
permission to record the content in the video-conference interview to capture and protect the
fidelity of the original context.

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
120
Summary of Data Collection is listed in Table 7, providing an itemized annotation of
each focus group and administrative interview (i.e., 15 focus group & 4 interviews).
Table 7. Summary Sample Data Collection

Data Collection Mode Role Participants Length
Focus Groups DCS FG1 (5 participants)
FG2 (5 participants)
FG3 (5 participants)
30-40 minutes
Interviews Administration A1, A2, A3, A4 30 minutes

Data Analysis
Varied approaches were used in the interviews, focus groups, and document data
analysis. As stated, interviews and focus groups were initiated on a video-conference platform
with the verbal content separated, transcribed, and digitized to be applied to KMO domains. The
data from the focus groups and interviews were codified into binary labels, organized, and
correlated with the interview data for trend and outlier identification. Zoom, Inc. video-
conferencing software was used for focus group and interview recordings. As stated in the focus
group and interview protocol, each focus group discussion (e.g., Zoom Inc.) was conducted
virtually via computer interface, edited in Imovie software, voice content separated into a digital
file (e.g., .mp3), and the voice file uploaded into the Datagain Inc. portal.
Separating the audio file from the original video-audio recording in Imovie limited
researcher bias by removing any visual identifiers of the participants to increase confidentiality
and instrumentation reliability (Fink, 2017). Datagain Inc. was used to transcribe each focus
group and interview content at the conclusion of each session. The results were organized in a
Google datasheet for participant correlation, alphabetizing, and possible binary coding for
exporting into statistical software (i.e., SPSS). Using SPSS for data collection and analysis,
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
121
nominal string data were used to identify the participants with a numerical code (Fink, 2017),
last and first name, and residential group home. Once into the designated SPSS software,
extraneous variables (e.g., student identification numbers and timestamps) were removed or
combined into other ID variables (Salkind, 2016). As stated, document analysis contextualized
the findings and was used to triangulate the data to validate KMO assumptions, causes, and
solutions generated from the interview and focus group instrumentation (see Table 4 & 6).
Results and Findings
The integral part of Chapter Four reports the qualitative and quantitative results and
findings related to each Research Question (RQ). RQ1: Does CTS’ DCS have the knowledge to
serve the needs of the TAY learner? RQ2: Does CTS’ DCS have the motivation and goal values
to serve the needs of the TAY learner? RQ3: Does CTS’ organizational management support the
necessary resources and services to serve the needs of the TAY learner?
Results and findings address each KMO domain, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate key
objective and subjective findings. Conclusions are correlated to Chapter Three’s “Assumed
Causes,” applied to each KMO domain, and organized into columns of identified “Needs” and
possible “Validation Strategies” including identified influencing variables (See Table 8, 9, &
10).
Chapter Four synthesizes and evaluates the study’s results and findings, providing
cohesion and continuity for transition into Chapter Five’s holistic research summary applied to
implications and ramifications of the study’s results and findings. Chapter Four’s results and
findings are organized according to subsequent subcategories applied to the study’s “Assumed
and Validated Causes” discussed in Chapter Three (see Table 6). Extending Chapter Three’s
“Assumed and Validated Causes,” in Chapter Four, each KMO domain is visualized into
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
122
separate analogous tables commenting on “Needs” and suggested “Validation Strategies” based
on findings (see Table 8: Knowledge and Skills, Table 9: Motivation, & Table 10:
Organizational).
Knowledge and Skills: Assumed and Validated Causes
STRTP KMO Context. To provide continuity to DCS services and resources, focus
group discussions and administrative interviews contextualized CTS’ STRTP living and learning
environment that affects TAY KMO resources (e.g., prescribed professional learning curricula)
specific to CTS’ STRTP commitments. Visualizing DCS interaction with the TAY learner,
Administrator 1 (A1) framed the KMO complexities of the TAY learner’s living and learning
environment within the existing CTS paradigm serving the DCS stakeholder and TAY student:
Our interaction with the girls, the foster girls, and you got to understand the picture that
they are basically one of the highest levels of care for teenage girls, compared to the
normal everyday. Not that there's anything normal and everyday about foster kids, but
they're much higher level of care, because the girls that we volunteer with have
experienced some very traumatic abuse, either physical and/or sexual. Many come from
either broken homes, or they come from parents that have been addicted to substances.
(e.g., moms that are crack addicts and have put their daughters up for sale so they can
make money). Some have a mom who has a boyfriend that is allowed to sexually abuse;
so many of these kids end up running away.
Basically, I think it's something like within 24 or 48 hours of a child running
away, they get picked up by a pimp, a “John” that immediately, you know, puts them into
the service, into the life as it's called. So one of the big problems is just keeping them
there and willing to fill the program. It's very hard when they've been brainwashed, where
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
123
they've been told that they're worthless and useless and the only person that loves them is
their pimp: the “John” or “Romeo,” their code that is using them. Some of these little
girls literally get raped 12-14 times a night.
So when they suddenly get put into foster care, yeah, that's the real hard thing to
unwind as a 12 or 14 year old kid, right. We're doing our best when given these
programs, but the reality is, every girl has, has suffered a very serious level of damage.
Some become survivors, I think, the ones that are more successful are those that are
angry and fight it, versus those that just accept that they're useless and have no purpose in
life, and nobody wants them after that. (A1).
Declarative Knowledge Factors:
Declarative knowledge was anticipated and indicated through every measured focus
group, administrative interview, and intervention protocol, parsing “Need” and relevant
“Validated” approaches to address CTS’ DCS stakeholder personal and professional declarative
knowledge solutions. Identifying deficiencies and solutions emphasize the measured efficiency
and required development for reinforced TAY graduation and college and career goals (see
Table 4, 6, & 8). Identified needs and proposed strategies target the encyclical, theoretical
content proven to be more complex with a targeted collaboration among all applicable CTS
stakeholders, providing clarity and commonality of CTS’ desire-centered mission objectives (i.e.,
skills and resources) for sustainable independence (e.g., Cognitive science, pedagogy, esoteric
academic content, formative & summative intervention, statistical research measurements (e.g.,
interviews, surveys, quizzes), and TAY standardized skill-based level descriptors) (see Table 6).

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
124
Through resourcing the CTS DCS stakeholder, TAY learners will eventually demonstrate
self-advocacy of their learning in individual and collaborative activities that emulate the initial
modeling from the targeted stakeholders. The DCS stakeholder will model self-regulatory skills
that practice self-reliance and resilience for TAY transferred ownership, impacting declarative,
procedural, and metacognitive monitoring (Ambrose et al., 2010). To allow for processing time
and reinforcement of advanced declarative strategies that impact procedural and metacognitive
tactics, the adoption of Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) is at the center of this proposed
intervention (i.e., validated approach) (Kirschner et al., 2006). CLT aims to be adaptable and
interrelated with other content and disciplines affecting each domain represented in a KMO
model. The strategy to “segment” and/or itemize declarative or procedural elements, discussed
next, into paced and deliberated parts allows the stakeholder to access information effectively for
modeling and TAY learning practice. The intervention will target specific standards that the
stakeholder will practice and monitor independent progress and TAY adoption. The intervention
design will incrementally work on deficiencies so the stakeholder’s cognitive load can be
addressed by identifying goal-oriented problems, synthesizing information to avoid redundancy,
or modifying instruction to avoid “split-attention” or multiple “modalities” to streamline
information (Kirschner et al., 2006).
Focus group participants collectively responded that it would be beneficial to adopt and
implement personal and professional learning modules related to declarative content to apply and
promote procedural and metacognitive awareness. The focus group members agreed that a
prescribed “curriculum” would impact academic proficiency and personal interaction with the
TAY learner. It was also noted that direct and applicable instruction would be culturally
motivating, indicating a shared tangible value that complements CTS’ present mission
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
125
objectives. One focus group (FG) member commented on living and learning skills reinforced
through prescribed curricula with intermittent, timed windows of integration:
With all of the activities that can be used, it’s sometimes hard to coordinate or choose
activities [curriculum] that can best help the students/girls. We try to choose interesting
choices that the girls like, but we also know sometimes the [curriculum] choices have to
be about boring educational skills/stuff needed for them beyond the homes. Having a
“process” that includes us to see how they choose what they choose to help the girls
academically and socially would be really helpful. Sometimes we just do it because it is
there, so, we don’t really think about how it got there. Keeping things simple, especially
for these girls with so much going on, and, you know, “prescribed,” helps everyone
understand, use, and achieve the goals. (FG1).
Focus group and administrative data suggest the need for continuity and cohesion within
the processes that affect DCS professional learning content, design, and integration. As the
focus group member communicated, the KMO complexities of the TAY learner should not be
exacerbated by incongruous educational curricula and protocol that oversimplifies the
multidimensional complexity affecting the TAY learner’s ecological development
(Bronfenbrenner, 2009).
Declarative Content and Cognitive Science Strategies. As indicated by each focus
group and addressed from an organizational perspective via administrative interviews, awareness
and practical use of strategic approaches related to expository content and/or cognitive scientific
understanding are, presently, not intentionally integrated into the personal and professional
learning curriculum components. It was indicated that direct and intentional curriculum content
and complementary scientific findings would benefit a foundational declarative understanding to
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
126
be accented by compounding and/or overlapping KMO factors. Augmenting declarative content
and related research would apply to tangible personal and professional learning evidence to
visibly improve the proficiency and intrinsic adoption of relevant, data-driven practices for TAY
application. Revising TAY resources and services with the direct intent to amplify content and
scientific understanding would be integral to encouraging cultural and professional relevancy
central to CTS’ mission objectives. Discussions within each focus group commented on the
intimidation of complex content to be used in personal and professional learning and reinforced
within mandated compliance categories; however, it was identified to be a fundamental need to
provide data-driven techniques to drive direct and indirect TAY instructional opportunities. The
focus groups shared a recurring conversation about declarative content integrated naturally and
incrementally with stakeholder’s personalized input to drive instruction and implementation with
extrinsic professional development value relative to pedagogical strategies (e.g., Quota Schemes,
Piece-rate Schemes, Tournament Schemes, Flat-rate schemes) (Clark & Estes 96-97).
Additionally, each administrator interview indicated a need for increased and deliberate
integration of relevant content, scientific terminology, and conceptual application as applied to
the personal and professional learning environment, cultural support and development, and
promotion of TAY emancipatory skills and goals. A1 stated:
I know the [DCS] staff goes through a lot of training, they're always in training. In fact,
they go through so much training, I wonder when they can actually do their job. I think
what they're training them to do is more the psychological aspect of it, You know, if this
child behaves this way, this is how you handle it. Most of the training is preventative.
The [DCS] staff deal with the problem in front of them instead of working toward long-
term goals. They need training to understand what motivates the child from one point to
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
127
the next, or from one situation to the next; And to handle any kind of disruption that
might arise. There needs to be more refined training that actually train[s] the staff to train
the kids to do specific things (e.g., life-skills, study-skills, etc). (A1).
New, continually improving and progressive cognitive scientific research, no matter the
declarative complexity and personal intimidation, is central to using data to drive instructional
practices among all constituents. For example, integrating explicit Cognitive Task Analysis
(CTA) training with energy spent on the scientific research driving instructional practices (Clark
et al., 2008) is directly correlated to Stakeholder and TAY transfer rate improvement. Practicing
and applying CTA protocol to personal and professional learning for initial DCS stakeholder
refinement will impact the individual practitioner-learner for relatable and effective TAY
modeling. Focus groups and administrative interviews acknowledged that need to integrate more
exciting scientific advancements that bridge the gap between abstract KMO variables with
concrete, measurable correlation. An explicit attempt to arm TAY resources and services with
declarative, cutting-edge cognitive research and complementary pedagogical strategies is an
exciting challenge shaping personal and professional learning.
Cross-disciplinary Application. The focus groups indicated a fragmentation between
the application of organizationally sponsored personal and professional learning and daily,
practical integration directly and positively impacting the TAY learner. While discussing
declarative knowledge tenets, focus group discussions connected content and scientifically
explicit instruction as a possible unification of larger components of TAY resources and services
with mandatory and reinforced compliance training and/or organizational development provided
to address TAY supports (e.g., academic, socio-cultural, and socio-emotional attributions)
(Rueda, 2011). The focus groups identified the need to reinforce organizational training (e.g.,
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
128
compliance-related, organizational, or site-based personal and professional learning) with
individual identification, diagnosis, and application for TAY instructional needs. A1 addressed
the deficiency in declarative knowledge leading to procedural knowledge with basic living skills,
let alone academic content:
The [TAY] girls don't have a clue how to cook a meal. So getting my staff to involve the
kids in the cooking of the meal is quite a chore? Or, the [TAY] girls are supposed to be
cleaning the [STRTP ] house, and the DCS is supposed to be cleaning alongside of them
and training them. Often the houses are filthy because the staff doesn't have a clue how to
clean the house. So when you want to talk about training, and I know in the group homes,
all the focus goes on the psychological end of it. Yeah. There's great need to connect the
school skills to basic life-skills. (A1).
The focus groups and administrative interviews stated the value in creating awareness of a
necessary alignment and pragmatic synthesis between theoretical, declarative training focused on
the DCS stakeholder to conceptual TAY learner procedures. The focus groups saw this as
primary for sustainable, impactful performance attainment for the stakeholder and TAY learner.
Focus group members commented on understanding and using the content and related
pedagogical intervention as a holistic, cross-curricular or disciplinary value, reinforcing the
continuity of a younger TAY learner progressing toward high school graduation. A unified-
theory of intervention, as applied to the TAY learner, allows for early reinforcement and
refinement of TAY resources to achieve culminating goals like graduation and college and career
readiness (e.g., holistic, progressive grade-level standards, age-related cognitive awareness, and
unilateral data-driven instructional strategies) (Conley & Darling-Hammond, 2013; O’Day,
2002).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
129
Also, focus group participants stated that this “retrospective,” wider-lens approach would
benefit, though limited by length of residence and exposure, the older TAY learners that are
closer to matriculation and inevitable emancipation beyond CTS’ residential facilities. This value
of a larger context of the stakeholder’s personal and professional application leads to an
ecological awareness of the TAY learner’s full education and developmental spectrum. This
more complete ecology of the learner is at the heart of the challenging socio-cultural and socio-
emotional TAY barriers that affect metacognitive and motivational variables discussed in
extended KMO analysis (Bronfenbrenner, 2009). For example, understanding the learning
process and assumed impediments common in early lifespan development allows for the cross-
disciplinary, unified understanding of the whole learner, limiting an oversimplification of the
TAY student that finds placement with CTS in late adolescents or early adulthood. The focus
groups articulated the value in personalizing stakeholder instruction and learning to drive TAY
function and performance as a collective, comprehensive understanding of the learner’s full
ecological narrative (Bronfenbrenner, 2009). One FG member stated:
There has to be very specific training programs. This is how you cook. This is how you
clean a house. This is how you manage your money. This is how you write a resume.
This is how you apply for a job. This is how you get up in the morning, go to work. This
is how you call your boss and say, Hey, I'm sick. You know, instead of just staying in bed
for three days and then when you get back to work you’re fired. These kids don't even
know that kind of stuff. You know, what is simple and normal and easy to us. (FG3).
Stakeholder and TAY Alignment Accountability. Evidenced-based, data-driven
instructional strategies are foundational to objective academic achievement; however, allotting
time for analysis, strategizing for design and implementation, checking for instrumentation
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
130
reliability, and achieving fidelity of evaluative methodology, from curriculum to practitioner, are
paramount for incremental adjustments required for stakeholder and TAY performance
accountability (Conner & Rabovsky, 2011). Focus groups and administrative interviews
commented on the complexity to “follow-up” with initial measurements due to time constraints.
Objective methodology allows for reciprocal application and differentiated instructional
strategies tailored to the individual (Conley & Darling-Hammond 2013), but the pressing
realities of daily instruction and non-academic factors stress the consistency for incremental and
progressive instructional adjustments.
A regimented, user-friendly, and consistent evaluative protocol is essential for continued
improvement that holds faithful to equitable, quantifiable, data-driven instruction (Conner &
Rabovsky, 2011). Choosing the DCS as stakeholder with the intent of TAY transfer requires a
constant realignment of CTS’ personal and professional learning expectations for personnel to
achieve TAY application and refinement. One FG member commented that the limited time to
meet all the KMO needs of these TAY girls becomes a matter of simplifying what is most
important:
We do provide social and living skills in our educational programs. We do try and teach
some of the things beyond school. Basically, what they're doing at this foster care home
is providing a safe environment, given basic needs, and provide them with psychological
help. Unfortunately, time is limited and often supports [educational needs] are put to the
last. This can become a daily habit formed just to survive the day. I mean, sometimes you
get so tired, maybe frustrated, to deal with all the things and knowing that we are
supposed to do other stuff, more difficult stuff, well, it’s overwhelming (FG2).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
131
Focus groups and administrative interviews indicated the need for localized, consistent,
and intentional curriculum alignment slots dedicated to evaluative accountability—harmonizing
stakeholder learning standards with TAY functionality for independent practice. An intentional
alignment between stakeholder and TAY learning expectations is, also, in harmony with CTS’
dedicated mission commitments.
Comprehensively, CTS exists for the TAY “user” to rely upon for ultimate and long-term
sustainability. With this regard, pledging a constant allegiance to the TAY learner’s services and
resources, no matter the restrictions, no matter the complexity of organizational bureaucracy
(Romzek & Dubnick, 1987), no matter the ecological complexity to achieve extrinsic and
intrinsic curriculum alignment is much more than a suggestion; it is, as stated, the essential,
salient ethical accountability and altruistic responsibility of all constituents (Scott & Palinscar,
2006).
Procedural Knowledge Factors:
Procedural knowledge, similar to CTS’ declarative knowledge assumptions, was
anticipated and indicated through each focus group and intervention measurement. These
assumptions are outlined in the associated tables under “Need” and relevant “Validated”
approaches to address CTS’ DCS stakeholder personal and professional procedural knowledge
solutions (see Table 4, 6, & 8).
Evaluation and Feedback. Chapter Two’s Literature Review details the constructive
and far-reaching value of peer-based and/or collegial “feedback” (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Applying the literature to CTS’ focus group and administrative interview results and findings
aligned a holistic, collaborative undertaking directly applied to subcategories indicated in
Assumptions, Needs, and Validations. The following subcategories apply to procedural findings
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
132
related to collaborative feedback and networking strategies impacting all relevant stakeholders:
effective strategies to promote personalized, differentiated instruction; promotion and utility of
performance and mastery goal values of DCS stakeholder and TAY learner; procedural content
and pedagogical intervention modeling for TAY transfer; procedural understanding of college
and career readiness standards for affecting the TAY learner; explicit training and practice with
quantitative and qualitative data collection methodology to refine and direct instructional
stakeholder practices; and reinforced, effective collaborative, networking strategies to promote
engagement and interest within the context of personal and professional learning for effective
TAY modeling.
Each focus group and administrative interview identified the value in an enduring
commitment to a scripted protocol related to personal and professional learning and policy
integration. The results and findings articulated the procedural value of collaborative adoption
and implementation of organizational agendas as a vehicle to cultivate collegiality and familial
identification while accessing the collective power of networking attributes (Dyer, Gregersen, &
Christensen, 2011). A procedural deficit in specific content and methodology would directly and
positively impact the acumen and dexterity for proficient use and access of data-driven pedagogy
and related instrumentation to improve stakeholder and TAY learner performance. Each focus
group and administrative interview indicated the value of viable collaborative and networking
opportunities reinforced by well-articulated and user-friendly protocol—a validated strategy with
cultural and academic ramifications (Dyer et al., 2011). One FG member stated, “Even though
there is a lot of common ground among the [DCS] staff, there just isn’t enough ‘quality’ time to
sit down and get to know and learn from your co-workers.” (FG2). Additionally, A1 hinted that
accountability issues could be improved among the CTS personnel to maximize quality
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
133
professional learning to provide collaborative opportunities and diligent feedback: I have
witnessed numerous times the CTS staff not really engaged in serving the needs of the [TAY]
girls—just sitting on their cell phones doing what they're doing. That's a real problem. That's a
need for accountability. (A1).
Hattie (2016) correlates collaborative access on student achievement with an average 0.4
effect size (i.e., approximately five times more likely) to affect learner performance. As stated,
all three focus groups and four administrative interviews discussed the desire and purpose of
collaborative inquiry as a reinforced entity within personal and professional learning modules.
Though focus groups varied on different levels of comfort, ideology, and personal, collaborative
experiences, all participants validated the positive environmental and academic ramifications of
increased, strategically designed collaborative experiences.
Declarative to Procedural Content Value. The overlapping application from
declarative understanding to procedural application is germane to DCS modeling for TAY
transfer. Focusing on cross-curricular content use with procedural evaluation and feedback for
revision, the specific professional learning design can focus on targeted procedural objectives
necessary for TAY autonomy. For example, A1 states:
We offer educational-social skills for independence like sewing, cooking, vision boards
zoom classes, nutrition. We've tried to set them up with music programs, music therapy,
or therapy, things like that. For example, every month featured something that was
designed to teach social and living skills. It could be a cooking class, ABCs of money,
sewing where we actually got to make a pillow and taught them how to embroider and
how to sew button; they don't even know how to thread a needle, or how to make a knot
at the end of the thing. So just simple living skills that most kids get. (A1).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
134
It is the simplicity of foundational skills that can focus on the innate bridge between declarative
and procedural knowledge. These knowledge gaps can be a focus to improve integration during
evaluative, feedback sessions among the DCS stakeholder. Providing opportunities to practice
strategic modeling that independently and dependently itemize declarative and procedural values
will strengthen the TAY’s metacognitive schema integration.
Metacognitive Knowledge Factors:
Metacognitive knowledge solutions are needed to foster the stakeholder’s self-
monitoring of the learning process while developing effective schema that circumvents barriers,
impeding learning that maximizes the proficiency of TAY skill transfer (Ambrose et al., 2010).
Diligently repackaging declarative knowledge, sharing in the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT)
(Bandura, 1986) that supports procedural application, the ultimate manifestation of lifelong
learning is displayed when the DCS stakeholder (i.e., DCS) and TAY learner recognize, adjust,
implement, and achieve success through metacognitive knowledge awareness. To close the
metacognitive knowledge gap, stakeholder modeling would be prevalent; however, a scaffolded
process would offer self-monitoring elements for stakeholder and TAY learner regarding peer
feedback, reflective journaling, or revision of goal orientation values (Ambrose et al., 2010).
The findings and results of the metacognitive knowledge Assumptions, Needs, and
Validated Solutions are rooted in various applications for TAY modeling: reflection on discovery
of new content meaning and learning strategies; evaluation of strengths and challenges to
strategize personalized schema related to cognitive taxonomy; awareness of goals, interest,
judgments, stereotypes related to attributions and contingencies; self-regulation of incremental
approaches to specific content and integrated schema; monitoring progress of improvement in
itemized descriptors and specific intervention strategies; and adjusting strategies to accomplish
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
135
the most effective access to correct information or skill-based achievement to avoid redundancy,
learning attrition, and mental fatigue for effective TAY modeling (see Table 4, 6, & 8). Related
to the Social Cognitive Theory of learning (SCT) (Allal & Ducrey, 2000; Bandura, 1986), as it
pertains to expert stakeholder modeling, a heavy emphasis will rely on the stakeholder becoming
self-aware of strategies that work best in differing contexts to enhance TAY learner transfer:
curricular content, differentiated learning, socio-cultural contingencies (Brown et al., 2013), and
socio-emotional factors (Gasiewski et al., 2011).
The overlapping qualities of these theories offer the benefit of capitalizing on the
strengths and adaptability of shared tenets that manifest into performance, mastery, and self-
monitoring strategies—resulting in academic improvement while correlating information for
effective and practical use by the stakeholder and impressionable TAY learner (Pajares, 2010;
Senko et al., 2011).
Metacognitive Reflection and Goal Orientations. Defined vision with Specific,
Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound goals dictate the possibility and relevance of
personal and professional learning objectives (Doran,1981). Clark and Estes (2008) augment the
value in goal-defining collaboration that fosters varied input, encourages self-directed
application, and builds a team culture with intrinsic “ownership” managed by the stakeholder’s
self-monitoring and self-efficacy. It is the intentional and strategic integration of specific
metacognitive schema that can be accessed to design broader organizational directives and
personal and site-based performance objectives to promote metacognitive analysis and bolster
performance and mastery-related values (Clark & Estes, 2008). Dufour (2004) refers to a
harnessing of available personnel “energy” to tap into the power of available resources and
services available to shape realistic, quantifiable aims.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
136
The administrative interviews provided the challenges and strategies for goal-directed
development and application. Each interview applies to the specific administrative duties and
corresponding responsibilities; however, in all four interviews, the discussion provided detailed
examples of positive and negative goal-directed experiences with anecdotal reasoning for past
success and failures. A1 reflected on collaborative DCS and TAY goal planning sessions to
provide metacognitive modeling:
In January, there is a collaborative activity creating vision boards [involving DCS and
TAY stakeholders]. I always start with, let's go around the room. Let's talk about what
your vision for your future is. It could be a short-term vision, it could be long-term
vision. Of course, the first thing they'll be asked is what do you want to be when you
grow up? What do you want to do when you finish school? What do you want to do?
Some TAY responses I consistently hear are, “I'm going to be a worker, of course,” “I'm
going to be a pole dancer,” “I'm going to work in a strip club,” or “I don't plan to live that
long.” This was a little girl (name removed) who was like all of 14 years old. It’s almost
laughable to answer the question about what's going to happen with their future. Most of
them can't even get past today, much less their future. (A1).
Applying the vision or goal designing of the TAY modeled through learner-centered activities,
the evaluative practice of metacognitive schema development is applied as a simple, yet more
complicated value for DCS accountability. Two administrators provided candid feedback on the
purpose, value, and extended validity of administrative oversight evaluations and reflective
practices to foster schema for metacognitive goal or vision planning. Both indicated a generic
organizational need for accountability, but the delivery and follow-through were often
inconsistent due to time constraints and other organizational demands. Both administrators
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
137
communicated that the evaluated stakeholders displayed a disconnect for the process as
promotional and developmental, more of an obligatory process. All four administrators indicated
a need for time and evaluative revision to reinforce even the most mundane organizational
obligations. Each administrator stated that including all stakeholders in the design and
engagement of personal and professional learning and/or policy would be instrumental to
maximize ownership while practicing metacognitive strategies for TAY transfer. This
conversation was connected to the metacognitive practice of the DCS stakeholders’ intent design
to process their professional learning and to reflect, edit, and adapt effective modeling for TAY
transfer.
As stated, the collective design for goal development was seen by all four administrators
as a deliberate metacognitive practice applying reflection to target-related goal values indicative
of the broader team and personal orientations (Senko et al., 2011). Varied administrative
feedback applied different metacognitive skills reinforced through reflection, but all responses
indicated that more time be dedicated to the reflective process outside of any managerial
observation. It was also stated by three of the four administrators that this reflective component
be tied to data-driven measurements to chart personal and professional growth relative to goal
values (Senko et al., 2011).
All three focus groups provided detailed, subjective feedback applied to personal and
professional experience of goal design, observational value, and reflective practices. Like the
administrative responses, the DCS focus groups shared the personal significance of inclusive
goal-related planning. As one focus group member pointed out, it’s a simple conversation of
value, accessing the most relevant TAY caretakers to shape policy that affects the TAY learner.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
138
All focus groups indicated the value in a collective response and how positive a collaborative
goal design can aid to rewrite and add value to a seemingly arbitrary process (i.e., evaluations).
Lastly, the focus group members had mixed responses about the efficacy and value of a
reflective process. Even though metacognitive schema is directly shaped through a deliberate,
reflective component, the focus groups addressed the SMART feasibility of providing the
fidelity of resources to use the reflective metacognitive process in guiding instructional practices
(Doran,1981). One FG member discussed a long-term, positive outcome of metacognitive vision
planning directly affecting the TAY learner:
What's one of the beauties about a lot of staff is a lot of them came from the same kind of
background. A lot of the social workers, or a lot of the young people that are staff, and
they go, Oh, well, I lived that life. That's why I do what I'm doing. Many who came from
the foster care system, a lot of them are or might have been in a very underprivileged
kind of life or came from gangs or whatever. And then they made it out safely. And so
they have a need to help other kids. But they just squeaked by the skin of their teeth. And
then they went out and got an education, which is, I mean, very admirable, being that,
you know, they had a really tough life. (FG2).
This social, “peer” construct through “metacognitive empathy” encourages the authenticity of the
DCS’ goals affecting the TAY learner’s ownership. The metacognitive awareness built from
social-related experiences, especially from the DCS’ modeling, increases the transfer of
knowledge and skills to the TAY learner. A prescribed curriculum with collaborative and
evaluative components to drive instruction provides scaffolding of ancillary activities targeting
declarative, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge from “peer” DCS and/or trained DCS. The
SCT values in this application are relative to Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD):
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
139
"The distance between the actual development level as determined by independent problem
solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem-solving under
adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers." (Vygotsky, 1935, as cited in Allal &
Ducrey, 2000). Knowledge gap analysis with the intent to build data-driven instruction to
heighten the DCS’ sociological and psychological awareness amplifies the sincerity of the social
interaction pertinent amongst a TAY population. This expert to novice value to promote TAY
automaticity through DCS modeling (Kirschner et al., 2006) is foundational to the process of an
ecological approach to learning (Bronfrenbrenner. 2009). Motivational and Organizational
factors will complement Knowledge barriers with a greater understanding of all constituents
influencing the TAY learner’s ZPD (Allal & Ducrey, 2000).
The metacognitive knowledge findings and results indicate a collective need to include a
wider spectrum of stakeholders in goal design. A team-design strengthens personal and
professional goal values while adding meaning and long-term value to organizational policies
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Additionally, the results and findings provide purpose and limitations on
effective metacognitive reflective processes designed to encourage personal and professional
growth (Doran,1981). Each finding is to be filtered through the metacognitive domain to shape
goals, add value to policy, and encourage reflective improvement for encyclical performance.
The collective KMO analysis is integral to the fragile living and learning environment of the
TAY. Knowledge barriers will be not be minimized in isolation. DCS modeling for the TAY
learner will also include identifying motivational and organizational contingencies shaping TAY
academic, social, and psychological strength. As the research indicates, this is a collective,
familial experience that is challenged by the STRTP complexities.

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
140
Motivational Factors: Assumed and Validated Causes
“Motivation gets us going, keeps us moving, and tells us how much effort to spend”
(Clark and Estes, 2008, p. 80). Strategic application of personal and professional learning
designs aid in capitalizing on high-interest content impacting self-efficacy and motivational
variables for intrinsic and extrinsic adoption for sustainable, transferable growth (Senko et al.,
2011). Reinforcing the inherent value of the content is paramount to teacher-learner’s motivation
(Rueda, 2011) for TAY application. Specifically, the correlation between the macro factors of
choice, persistence, and mental effort with identified and intentionally built schema address
varied micro-motivational barriers shaping value goals (Rueda, 2011) (see Table 4, 6, & 8).
A2 frames motivational issues in the STRTP context:
It just comes down to will an awful lot. So then, if you're trying to work on the human
will issue, then you look for policy levers. Like, why aren't staff required to be in the
schools when kids in schools? I think there's some things really need to be relooked at.
And now we're going to have to relook at those high end, foster care kids because we're
going to run out of placements as well. Many places are just shutting their doors on them,
“We're taking our business in a different direction.” (A2).
As stated in Chapter Two’s Literature Review, all three motivational indices are
evaluated in this Gap Analysis. Declarative, conceptual, and procedural knowledge are
synthetically tied to motivational contingencies promoting or impeding choice and engagement
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Illustrated in Figure 3.

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
141
Figure 3. Three Facets of Motivational Performance

Source: Adapted from Turning research into results (Clark, R. E., & Estes, F., 2008; Charlotte, NC: Information Age).
Focus group and administrative qualitative feedback allowed for clarity on the level of
choice in professional learning that impacts effort and persistence for long-term growth (e.g.,
DCS and TAY learner) (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Goddard et al., 2014). Activating and
cultivating profitable, progress-driven orientations that accommodate the stakeholder’s choice,
effort, and persistence with built-in schema, anticipating influencing attributions and
contingencies, offers a holistic yet subjective consideration of independent and dependent
variables shaping the learner’s motivation (Clark & Estes, 2008; Ryan &n Deci, 2000; Senko et
al., 2011). The following motivational findings addressed choice-selection criteria (i.e., what and
how), goal values, socio-cultural and emotional influences (i.e., attributions and contingencies),
schema integration, intervention content (e.g., procedures and policies), TAY modeling,
employment and efficacy, TAY cognitive, motivational, and pedagogical strategies, and
collaborative instructional contexts (e.g., PLC) for performance and mastery value for effective
TAY modeling and transfer (see Table 6). The data measured concrete values correlated with
Active Choice
Intention to pursue
goal is replaced by
action.

Persistence
Once started, we
continue in the face of
distractions
Mental Effort
People work smarter
and develop novel
solutions
Increased Performance
Increased motivation combines with
effective knowledge, skills, and work
processes to result in goal achievement
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
142
motivational factors along with abstract variables indicative of sociological and psychological
tenets. A2 is quoted:
I've always thought about what is good teaching. Teaching is the will to teach. It's the
human will to step up to the job. And what happens in systems is that you get more
complacent people. So, what you end up in systems, there's people counting to
retirement, it's the nature of systems that really is at work here. So that's a very hard thing
to counter to be honest. Yeah. But you have to find that key. Like, I always love it, when
someone will say to me, oh, the foster care system has gotten much better. How? Because
we talk about it more, because there's more policies? (A2).
Data from the focus groups and administrator interviews indicate integration and
continued refinement of differentiated choice within personal learning and organizationally
sponsored professional learning modules (indicated in Table 8 & 9). Every focus group stated a
heightened interest in being part of the design, adoption, and integration of personal and
professional content. Despite all focus group showing interest and ownership of content and
procedural selection of choice-driven learning modules, two focus group members voiced a
hesitancy in their competence and present experience to be part of the selection process of
content most effective to achieve desired results.
Two focus groups discussed the need to increase the consistency of stakeholder
involvement to emphasize creative integration of all participants in learning opportunities. One
focus group member indicated the job’s practicality and complexity limit extended opportunity
to encourage a collaborative process to measure tangible change. Findings indicate that
dedicating consistent and routine collaborative, choice-driven advice from the DCS stakeholder,
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
143
interwoven within adopted learning opportunities, would positively impact the stakeholder’s
extrinsic and intrinsic motivational factors (Ryan & Deci, 2000). FG2 member commented:
We [DCS staff] have so many different kinds of responsibilities that it is easy to get
overwhelmed in the day-to-day job. It is easy to feel disconnected from the reason why
you took the job, and providing opportunities to find your motivation again. I mean, to be
reminded of your reason for working here would be really encouraging to share stories
and ideas [with colleagues]. It’s so super important to feel apart of a team and if we can
make the girls feel like they are part, then, wow, amazing! We need the time to do this,
to learn and be encouraging to each other because everything else follows from there.
These kids don’t have much motivation and if we are too busy then, well, who do they
have. (FG2).
Additionally, all four administrator interviews indicated the positive motivational
influence when the stakeholders have a say in the design and application of relevant content.
Administrative perspectives differed from focus group members regarding the feasibility of
collaborative, choice-driven input from the learning stakeholder relative to the cost and
management of integration. There was organizational acknowledgment of the time-constraints
related to involved integration from all participants; however, the administrative concerns were
directed to the financial feasibility and time-constraints pertaining to policy and regulation
accommodations.
The focus groups discussed varied uses and effectiveness of professional learning related
to personal preference impacting choice, effort, and persistence (Rueda, 2011). From online
modules, policy regulation, collaborative learning, and external professional development (e.g.,
seminars, professional consultants, and charitable foundation input), all focus groups indicated
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
144
the need for consistency in theme-related content focused on the revision and refinement of
specific skills with recurring learning opportunities. It is worth indicating that among the varied
choices of learning opportunities, all focus groups discussed the preference to receive guidance
and instruction from experts outside the organization rather than organizational peer-DCS
evaluators (e.g., coach, manager, etc.) (see Appendix D).
All focus groups addressed the lack of motivation when the professional learning was too
broad and generic to tangibly and directly affect the TAY learner. Providing a more narrow
scope and sequence with opportunity for refinement suggested an honesty of the justification for
professional learning, resulting in skills that would promote the stakeholder and help the TAY
learner. Selecting and facilitating professional learning choices that reflect the stakeholder’s
input while narrow enough to apply the selected content as a life-skill for both the DCS and TAY
are at the heart of the ethically driven CTS mission objectives. FG3 member stated:
If we are showing the girls that we are too busy with all our “stuff,” then it really hurts
our ability to make them feel like we care. We want to practice, if we have the time, the
little things that make them know we care. (FG3).
A1 commented on addressing encouragement and motivation at a more intimate level:
When they leave us, we really encourage them to stay in touch with us. I've given out my
phone number too. I can't tell you how many. I will initially and always will take them
out to lunch. Or, I'll take them grocery shopping, I'll do all these things out of my own
pocket because it's just, you know, let's just be like a little mother. These kids need to be
mothered, and most of them exit the foster care and they don't have a family to fall back
on. Yeah, the only other people they have to fall back on is a case manager. I've heard
them say, I'm sorry, I keep calling my case manager, but she doesn't answer me. I've been
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
145
calling my social worker and she's not calling me back. I think it's not that they don't have
the interest in these kids. It's just that their caseloads are huge. I guess. We need to make
sure we aren’t too busy to provide this encouragement, this motivation while we have
them in the homes. (A1).
The administrative interviews discussed the organizational pressure to find the time and
resources to address generic professional regulatory development while also displaying the
cognizance of preserving learning and skill improvement centered on data-driven findings
complementary to the motivational values of all learners. Focus groups and administrative
interviews highlighted this balance between data-driven techniques and regulatory learning while
maintaining an intrinsic ownership of the learning for authentic, encouraging TAY transfer.
The administrative interviews addressed the organizational process and decision-making
related to professional learning choices. One administrator indicated the challenge to effectively
communicate and consistently implement learning modules affecting site-based personnel that
process mid to upper administrative decision-making protocol. As one administrator suggested,
it’s an oversimplification to suggest that only two levels exist between the DCS stakeholder and
the organizational management. Each level has the pressure and responsibility of certain
decisions due to the immediacy of job-related duties. However, no matter the different levels of
organizational demands or the direct onsite DCS, the central organizational goal should always
be focused on the TAY learner that CTS has been entrusted. For A2, the central organizational
goal is centered on motivational development of the TAY:
Honesty, relationships. I have [policy of] unconditional love, a loving safe haven. Reality
potential, those principles don't exist in that clinical world anymore. They're just gone.
You're never gonna hear the word love. It's void . . . love is central to our work. (A2).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
146
As all four administrative interviews indicated, this challenge to make organizational
decisions in the TAY learner/s best interest is a matter of constant accountability to focus on
objective decision-making and collaborative involvement shaping and influencing the subjective
TAY living and learning environment. Feedback from A2 and A4 emphasized the necessity to
seek and employ input from all constituents impacting the TAY learner. Creating friendly and
non-threatening feedback with practical questions and reflection focusing on the TAY learner
helps to remind the multi-layers of decision making to redirect the effort and resources for the
fidelity required for TAY sustainability (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Additionally, A3 indicated the complexity of the DCS stakeholders’ onsite
responsibilities that result in an immediate response to TAY services and resources rather than a
long-term, deliberated incline toward self-sufficiency. A3 pointed out that local, onsite
administrative’ decisions live between the practical choices of daily survival and more idealistic
organizational and pedagogical goals that get pushed aside in cases of emergency and/or
bureaucratic oversight. A4 suggested that DCS personnel might look misdirected in motivation
but often it is a case of simple, pragmatic decisions that serve the immediate needs of a complex
clientele. A4 suggests that it is incredibly purposeful for onsite and offsite management to make
a concerted, consistent effort to acknowledge the complexity of the job while choosing
professional learning skills that promote the employee as an individual with the hope of TAY
transferability. A3 indicated a need for management to have a pulse on the local practitioner’s
energy and effort to provide the fidelity of relevant, effective, and sustainable services and
resources that lend naturally toward goal values. A1 addressed specific activities that reinforce a
sense of worth that encourages the DCS and TAY learner’s choice, effort, and persistence
(Rueda, 2011), influencing personal and professional objectives:
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
147
These girls don't know what normal is, they have not had a childhood. We try and give
them a little taste of what childhood was supposed to be like. A lot of these kids have
never gotten an Easter basket. We try to encourage the [DCS] staff and girls by doing fun
things. Like a fancy Thanksgiving dinner: Full linens, the big Turkey, the post spread,
laying chair covers, elegant flowers on the table, etc.
We will go around the table and say what we are thankful. I remember hearing
multiple times they'll say things like, well, I'm thankful I didn't commit suicide so I could
be sitting here today. Or, I've never seen a beautiful table like this, except in a magazine.
Or, the only Thanksgiving dinner ever got was in a styrofoam box. One of the most
common questions were asked is, why do you want to spend time with us? Why us? Why
would you want to give us these things?
Valentine's Day is also special. We brought in tables, China, the whole bit. We
did the tear trays of teas and petit pastry and scones and everything just like a regular tea.
And it was specifically designed to teach and we told them what we were doing. We're
teaching you social etiquette. So when you're invited out into the public, What do I do
with it? What do I do with this? I mean, I've got three spoons, what do I do with them.
What to do with your napkin when you sit down, take it and put it on your lap? How to
pass something at a table. Foster kids, unfortunately, are hard to teach social skills.
In the summertime, we always have a big Western Ho Down. We had props,
barbecue, sack races, stick-horse rides. A photographer came out and took a million
pictures of them and gave them their picture right away. As a foster kid, nobody takes a
picture of you and gives you pictures. So a lot of these activities were designed for them
to just be a kid. I remember comments, “Oh my god, that child has been here for months.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
148
I've never seen her smile and look at her laughing” Or, “Oh my God, look at it, they're
actually acting like a bunch of little kids. Isn't that beautiful?” And that's who you're
dealing with, kids that have never had an opportunity to be kids. (A1).
Activities like this are designed to address key motivational factors that influence the DCS and
the TAY learner. They address declarative, procedural, and metacognitive skills that overlap or
are interdependent on motivational factors influencing choice, effort, and persistence (Rueda,
2011) the DCS and the TAY. The findings suggest a powerful correlation between choice, effort,
and persistence to address motivational tendencies that drive organizational decisions while
shaping and fostering a healthy and promotable living and learning culture of the DCS
stakeholder and TAY learner (Clark & Estes, 2008; Ryan &n Deci, 2000; Senko et al., 2011).
DCS Stakeholder Ownership. As indicated by the motivational findings, the DCS
stakeholder, if empowered by organizational protocol, would improve motivational value and
increase TAY buy-in by “…tak[ing] responsibility for identified problems with student outcomes
together with the belief they have the capability to solve them” (Alton-Lee & Timperley, 2008).
Administration that could foster stakeholder motivation by increasing pedagogical decision-
making among onsite practitioners would increase direct agency, impacting performance and
mastery value orientations (Senko et al., 2011). Creating opportunities for self-practice in
efficacy and resilience would directly impact stakeholder confidence modeled for the TAY
learner. One focus group member indicated the excitement and increased confidence affecting
motivational factors of job satisfaction when being entrusted with managerial decisions directly
impacting the stakeholder and TAY engagement. A3 also indicated the ideal model of
professional learning to be one that impacts the personal learning of the employee, resulting in
impactful decisions shaping the direction of the learner and the learning climate. A3 stated that
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
149
instilling confidence through relinquishing managerial control in certain instances instills
tangible ownership while building leaders within the organizational structure. A3 indicated that
fostering educational choice and decision selection is indicative of the same type of sustainability
desired from the TAY learner. A3 stated that it’s the desired outcome of all learning—an
autonomous, daily application of effective and “wise” choices that promote opportunities.
The findings suggest an organization that can designate managerial decisions related to
professional learning decisions will foster long-term learning with palpable ownership indicative
of CTS’ mission objectives. Both focus group members and administrators acknowledged the
selective increase in confidence and personal ownership of the organization and TAY learner
when agency was afforded to non-managerial stakeholders, making informed learning decisions
and allocating resources. The data indicate the correlation between opportunities for leadership
decisions and individual choice, effort, and persistence rely on the valued ownership of the
stakeholder in the more extensive, holistic decision-making process (Rueda, 2011). These
opportunities for selective change given to the stakeholder directly engaged with the TAY
learner fosters leadership skills and increased motivational ownership while laying the
foundation for a caring, engaged, and devoted learning and working climate. A2 commented on
the seriousness of engaging all stakeholders at a motivational level through ownership of the
program and the sincere care for the TAY learner. A1 discussed the reality of the TAY learner’s
need for a DCS mentorship that loves their job and sees value in the authentic, heartfelt care of
the STRTP context:
The girls, well, it’s even a sadder situation, because most of them will end up pregnant.
And then they'll have a baby and the baby's taken away from them. And then it puts them
into a whole new cycle of hating themselves. Now, look what I've done to my child.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
150
There's no other way to say it, except there are a bunch of Lost Souls. They are put out in
the street, and we expect them to just magically become an adult, because they're 18
years old, and we can no longer take care. (A1).
There is an earnest reality of finding impactful, truthful motivational strategies that reinforce the
DCS at a personal and professional level. Impacting TAY achievement through strategies that
promote DCS’ motivation and ownership is inherently interwoven with the fidelity of expert to
novice transfer (Allal & Ducrey, 2000). The result is sustainable, lifelong learning and skills for
both the DCS stakeholder and TAY learner. The data suggest that opportunities to grow and
practice leadership skills help unify the objectives applied unilaterally within CTS’ organization.
DCS Stakeholder Identified Learning Modalities. All focus groups addressed
preference for varied personal and professional learning modalities. This suggests a cognitive
awareness in ascertaining what kind of presentation and content delivery is preferable and,
subjectively, most efficient to achieve desired results. The focus group conversations, however,
did delineate between their confidence of personal preference learning modalities and less
confidence in what modalities would best transfer to the TAY learner. Focus group discussions
did address CTS’ past efforts to diversify professional learning content delivery; however, it was
not discussed if organizational choices to access different learning styles were intentional or
indicative of the content’s platform.
Focus group respondents were varied in the learning styles they considered preferable,
more engaging, and more effective for personal adoption and TAY skill transfer. As stated, focus
groups commented on external programs and/or experts, internal experts (e.g., coaches, local
management), internal organization professional learning, policy and professional regulatory
certifications, and intrinsic personal content related to the present professional context. For
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
151
example, technology-driven professional development (e.g., distance-learning and online
modules) provided asynchronous learning, allowing for personalized learning contexts and
accommodating job-related schedules; however, there was indication that some of the content
modules allowed for too passive engagement from the learner to indicate depth of knowledge
and application.
A2 stated that abstract motivational factors affecting learning and effective integration of
the professional learning curricula are rooted and cultivated from a philosophical perspective
affecting choice, effort, and persistence (Rueda, 2011). It is this intangible foundation that is hard
to identify and cultivate as a generic organization. A2 remarked that the organization should look
to utilize and then rely on collaborative efforts with reflective evaluation to build a unified,
patriotic commitment to larger goals, no matter if the individual motivation is not collective. A2
commented:
I love world religion, so my evolution is through the spirituality [worldview]. Okay, how
do those two go together, [concrete, data-driven strategies and motivational, abstract,
spiritual will], which, by the way, in the foster care system is [quite complicated]. [For
example, building relationships to promote motivation to promote learning]. Relationship
is essential in this . . . relationship to me would be over here on the spiritual side.
Whereas my, you know, my zone of proximal development, my holding people to their
potential, you know, that's over here. I'm merging it and I'm saying, “Well, how can I
move their zone?” How can I move them and I'm only going to be able to move them
through what I'm going to call spirituality practices. What constantly is being proven is
that the systems are on clinical theory. Whereas if you get down to the community
assistant, they weren't even trained on that. (A2).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
152
In summary, the focus group members and administrative interviews voiced clarity in
professional learning preferences. As stated, this clarity was less confident in what preferences
are objectively more effective to engage the TAY learner and reinforce TAY modeling of college
and career readiness skills for the independent living objective. Additionally, motivational
contingencies are an increased need to identify and promote among DCS and the TAY learner.
There is suggested a baseline of inherent will that is foundational to the individual or the
organizational worldview.
DCS Stakeholder Collaboration. In Chapter Two’s Literature Review, collaborative
opportunities offer stakeholder team-building due to the shared resources, collective mission,
employment objectives, and organizational promotions (Clark & Estes, 2008). CTS’ efforts to
incorporate collaboration affect the residential community communicating a shared focus while
encouraging self-directed learning and fostering teamwork, accessing the strengths of individual
team members (Clark & Estes, 2008). Data from the administrative interviews and focus groups
indicate that CTS relies heavily on teamwork relationships to achieve organizational objectives.
A3 stated that collaboration, though time constraints can challenge the consistency, is necessary
to access the varied TAY resources and services designated to make the greatest performance
and mastery-oriented achievements. All focus groups indicated the organizational efforts to
access and utilize collaborative opportunities to promote familial values within the local
residences and maintain connection as a valuable member of organizational directives.
The administrative interviews and focus group dialogue highlighted the value of relying
upon and placing faith in the collective team entrusted with TAY support. As one focus group
member reported, there is a fear or hesitance to rely on others when there lacks the consistency
for collaboration. Whether formal or informal, the TAY learner notices the genuine friendships
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
153
and collective goals of CTS’ employees (e.g., DCS stakeholder). This subjectively affects the
mood of the living and learning culture/climate and influences the intrinsic commitment to serve,
protect, and promote the TAY learner. The focus groups and administrative interviews confirmed
the need to build the fidelity of strong personal and professional relationships to demonstrate to
the TAY learner the importance and strength in achieving objectives through networking. A4
stated that the TAY learner often demonstrates concerns of trust and external reliance. To have
this demonstrated within CTS’ employees positively affects the living and learning culture of the
TAY while modeling the collective strength of teamwork, mirroring stable relationships and/or
family bonds. Modeling stable, committed, diligent, long-term relationships within a personal
and professional context is essential in transferring the right skills for TAY independence. A1
commented on the unique STRTP family dynamics:
They come into the foster care system and they might have had many different schools
within a year. So where are they educationally? Also, they have no sense of family, no
mentors or examples to encourage them. We need to find little educational moments to
teach them but also make them feel wanted, like they belong. We have made special
effort to treat them to a “normal” dinner.
We have the kids come in and sit down at a table like a family and feed them a
meal on a plastic plate, better than the styrofoam, if nothing else, and just make it feel
like they're part of a family. We need to take the time to just all sit down and play a game
at a table once in a while. Or, you know, why don't we just celebrate something,
somebody's birthday and make it feel like a family thing and that that doesn't happen
often? I guess, it's just because the staff is overwhelmed with everything else. (A1).

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
154
Both focus groups and administrators indicated that collaboration is foundational to CTS’
paradigm and inherently inseparable from the organizational objectives. A4 stated that the TAY
learner is a complex student with deficiencies that are multi-layered. It is essential to not over-
simplify the TAY’s motivational concerns without considering a lifelong void of relational
support. The data from all focus groups and administrative interviews suggest that the DCS
stakeholder success of TAY transference is fundamentally reliant on the opportunity to practice
and build a “cultural currency” through meaningful and innate collaborative opportunities (Uzun,
2012). The complex motivational factors impacting the TAY learner, from choice, schema
development, attribution and contingency navigation, and collective accountability, are complex
and deep-rooted in psychological impediments. These deficiencies are best served in
demonstrating healthy, productive, and consistent collaborative relationships (i.e., personal and
professional) that generate and foster lifelong resources and services for the TAY learner. A2
discussed bridging the professional learning gap to address motivational factors to generate the
“cultural currency (Uzun, 2012) to achieve performance and mastery value (Senko et al., 2011).
So the question is, how do we train front level workers in theory and practice. And if we
don't address that, then what happens is the management of the system doesn't know how
to solve the problem when the kid goes cuckoo, because the employee couldn't handle it.
And when the employee can't handle it, because they're not trained, well? And then even
if they were trained, they wouldn't be trained in my weird spiritual thing. So if we don't
get the frontline trained, then what happens? You have very unhappy employees. And
then the management, the supervisors are tired of dealing with it. And then they say, well,
we just can't handle this kind of kid. (A2).

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
155
Organizational Factors: Assumed and Validated Causes
Document Analysis: Personal and Professional Learning. CTS’ historical efforts to
disseminate and train relevant stakeholders concerning TAY resources and services were
analyzed in varied document analysis sources (e.g., online documentation, published data,
professional learning policies (external and internal), professional learning curricula, meeting
agendas, and personal and professional feedback responses) (see Table 4, 6, & 8). The different
resources indicate a concerted effort to instill and practice a consistent and progressive system of
professional learning while fulfilling regulatory policies (e.g., federal, state, and county
regulations: MediCal, compliance, Program Quality Improvement, Title VI, HIPAA, standards
of conduct, quality assurance, CQI workgroups, retention of records, performance plans,
governmental corrective action, disciplinary procedures, non-compliance reporting, and cultural
competency plans) (CTS, 2020). As stated, CTS’ accountability toward equitable and data-driven
professional learning instruction correlates with external accreditations and affiliations (e.g., the
Council of Accreditation, California Council of Community Mental Health Agencies, California
Alliance of Child and Family Service, Western Association of Schools and Colleges, American
Association of Children’s Residential Centers, Child Welfare League of America, and
CalChamber) (CTS, 2020).
Organizational domains were measured pertaining to the fidelity of resources and
services applied to personal and professional learning and instructional design resources:
effective internal and external communication of pre-existing organizational mission
goals/visions, continuity and cohesiveness of professional learning objectives to promote
stakeholder collaboration, unification of professional learning designs for cross-disciplinary
content alignment, promotion of TAY performance and mastery attainment values, creation of
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
156
tangible and intangible incentives for employment retention (e.g., cultural and climate),
promotion of related professional development, accommodation of the stakeholder’s
schedules/resources for consistent collaboration, integration of effective, timely feedback
affecting the fluidity of the program, and routine integration of strategies that promote
motivation, confidence, self-efficacy to validate the instruction design (see table 6).
Outside accountability measures the shape and direct organizational learning practice and
policy that impact the DCS stakeholder and TAY learner. Document analysis indicates
compliance with, as stated, external obligations while aligning the selected professional learning
curricula to foster corroboration among constituents while encouraging learner-centered (i.e.,
DCS and TAY) choice and differentiated instruction (i.e., DCS and TAY). Additionally,
previous professional learning modules had built-in components of reflection and feedback
pertaining to quality and application of content and instructional delivery for improvement and
revision. The administrative feedback also referred to intentionally integrated questionnaires to
solicit the participants’ responses regarding purpose, value, preference, and improvement. A3
stated that these opportunities for feedback were intended to act as references to critique and
revise future instructional designs chosen at the organizational level and local-site
administration. Opportunity to offer feedback for value and improvement presents an informal
vulnerability for non-decision stakeholders to drive instructional practices; however, A2 stated
that there is an inherent subjectivity to participant feedback. The subjective nature of feedback,
with misdirected or misapplied data, is challenged with internal reliability threats or concerns
impacting generalizable application and viable revision for future professional learning (e.g.,
bias, dissent bias, neutral responses, and social desirability/conformity) (Fink, 2017; Mcleod,
2018).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
157
Document analysis and administrative interviews indicated a complementary alignment
between CTS’ external accountability measures (e.g., Accreditation, Health Agencies, Child and
Family Service, Children’s Residential Centers, Child Welfare, and CalChamber) with internal
accountability programs (e.g., Program Quality Improvement, standards of conduct, quality
assurance, performance plans, governmental corrective action, non-compliance reporting, and
cultural competency plans). A2 stated that this alignment between external and internal
accountability measures was more accidental than an intentional organizational choice. Many of
the domains measured in professional learning feedback were redundant with different responses
and, therefore, overlapping in application and evaluation. A1 stated that it would be helpful if
domain-specific questions could be structured and formulated to measure KMO categorical
analysis. Thinking categorically, though often consequently overlapping, would be purposeful to
evaluate revision according to learning domains and the targeted stakeholders most affected.
Focus group dialogue matched document analysis and administrator interviews,
indicating that varied opportunities for personnel feedback were offered to improve professional
learning. All three focus groups indicated feeling valued when solicited for feedback for
improvement; however, two focus groups discussed a hesitancy to be too critical in response.
Lastly, all focus groups talked about a slight skepticism of how impactful their feedback is taken
into account to guide future professional learning. For example, an FG1 member stated:
We understand the need for feedback, I assume to help make things better, but it seems
like nothing really ever changes. Maybe it gets lost in all the other stuff we are supposed
to learn and get better at, but I would like to see changes made and when they do, then
talk to us about what and why. If we could give honest feedback and actually see that
we’ve been heard, that would be really encouraging. (FG1).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
158

The data suggest that CTS offers a consistent internal and external coordination of
developmental feedback; however, more transparency and consistent organizational integration
of identified personnel responses are to be highlighted for personnel or stakeholder confidence in
corrective feedback measures.
Organizational Motivation Measures. Internal document analysis (e.g., onsite meeting
agendas, professional learning agendas, organization memos, and administrative evaluations)
indicates that CTS provides consistent and diverse access to personal and professional learning
modules. Despite the regularity and attempt to differentiate instructional content delivery, both
focus groups and administrative dialogue suggest a need for continued, targeted effort to
reinforce and refine professional learning to engage the stakeholder with deliberate choice or
preference in chosen content.
The dialogue within each focus group points to an acknowledgment of differentiated
instruction; however, there is a need for organizational communication to articulate the
justification of professional learning content and delivery. One focus group member stated that
the choices can seem diverse but disconnected from the actual content and purpose. Simplifying
choice with clear communication of the validity of that choice indicates greater importance than
fragmented modules and varied delivery that impedes continuity. Uniformity and cohesion,
despite the limitation of the diversity of professional learning modalities, would reinforce a
rhythm that would limit cognitive attrition due to the re-orientation of new structural content
(Vogel-Walcutt et al., 2011). Choosing and designing professional learning opportunities with
intentional hierarchy, a deliberation of differentiated choices, would help minimize cognitive
overload (Vogel-Walcutt et al., 2011) and reinforce professional and mastery level goal
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
159
orientations (Senko et al., 2011). The administrative interviews reinforced this need to find a
pragmatic balance of choice and efficacy. The need to prioritize learning that is cohesive,
continuous, and rhythmical should not be set aside for the diversity of personal preference
encouraged through differentiated instruction. A marriage between choice and efficacy
addresses inherent KMO concerns often overlooked (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Lastly, focus group two’s dialogue indicated a need to avoid repetitive training content
that does not specify progression toward a terminal goal. One focus group two member stated
that it would be helpful if the organizational-driven instructional design could clarify with
greater frequency the intent and long-term value of the professional learning opportunity.
Without a constant push to move toward an end-goal, the learning can feel stagnant without clear
direction toward a tangible, concrete skill that encourages or motivates the stakeholder and
positively impacts the TAY learner.
Organizational Climate and Culture. Discussed in Chapter Two’s Literature Review,
organizational protocol (e.g., organizational instructional design, professional resources and
services, and mission objectives) shape the culture and climate affecting relevant constituents
(Ambrose et al., 2010; Clark & Estes, 2008; Mcleod, 2018; Rueda, 2011; Stolle-McAllister,
2011; Tomlinson, 2017). CTS’ STRTP group home TAY residential facilities are vividly
affected by factors impacting the learning and living climate and culture in a context with shared
and cooperative resources. CTS’ organizational decisions are to be highly aware of the sensitive
nature of the TAY’s context. Intending to measure KMO variables to address and modify for
stakeholder accommodation and TAY transfer is an outcome of the core, collective cultural
experience that fosters or impedes a safe, nurturing, and caring environment (Stolle-McAllister,
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
160
2011). An FG2 member shared a personal value that has affected how she aids and provides for
the TAY learner:
You know, I think, I think you'll find a lot of personal, I don't want to say satisfaction,
because it's not satisfaction. But when you tell me, how does it make you feel? It
resonates more with me, because I'm an immigrant myself. So and I came here when I
was very young. And my parents were left behind. Yeah, it must make you feel good. It's
like, you know, giving back in a real serious way that this child really related to even if
you even if you didn't have that experience. (FG2).
FG3 member discussed addressing specific physical needs of the TAY learner prior to academic
expectations:
I have to share an example with a kid I’ve been working with in a different program. He's
in high school, he's newly enrolled at [name removed]. His name is [name removed]. Last
year, he blew his hand off with a firework by accident. And so he's also involved in gang
activity. And so he's dealing with a lot of social anxiety with a gang paranoia, because
he's trying to turn his life around. We found, I found a hand for him, a prosthetic hand.
We found a doctor that is willing to go prepare a basic hand for him [pro bono]. (FG3).
This DCS example shows the extremity of possible physical needs that are often surmountable
for the TAY learner. The girls in CTS’ STRTP homes often have great physical needs
complicated by the sociological and psychological factors impacting their living and learning
circumstances.
Document analysis data indicate CTS’ consistent effort to promote a “familial” learning
and living culture that fosters “social and cultural capital” (Stolle-McAllister, 2011, p. 12). The
varied factors that arise and impact the health and effectiveness of a conducive experience are
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
161
heightened with the TAY learner’s socio-emotional and cultural contingencies. A2 commented
on motivational perspective anticipating learner-specific attributions (Senko et al., 2011):
There's [a perspective in education] just what intelligence you're born with and then
there's motivation. We see this in the literature, how environment, how parenting, how
intrinsic [value] affects motivation. If you attach onto one teacher, you're going to be
more motivated. Like, you just see them and you want to rise to the challenge for a
different person, environmental relationship. And so motivation increases? Well, if you're
average, and you have high motivation, you can climb. If you're low, and you have no
motivation, and there's no one affecting this, then you can't climb. Motivation is a key
factor in this and it’s so individualized for each person. I keep coming back to my
spirituality issue. I don't think it's just a head thing. It's somewhere in the soul. It's the
whole person. I spent my whole life studying education. I mean, that's what I really am a
researcher. I could vomit when I read education topics now. It's like, Oh, my God, we
were on this 25 years ago. And the real problem once again, is the people in the system
that don't have the will to change the system. (A2).
As stated, at the organizational level, CTS is aware and is persistent in providing resilient
resources and services required of a communal living arrangement with heightened safety and
KMO concerns. All focus groups indicated the fragility of the TAY living and learning
experience among adolescents from different backgrounds and complex learning and
motivational attributes sharing common resources with a transitory placement (Senko et al.,
2011). Evolving and progressing as a collective environment with hyperbolic, sensitive factors is
CTS’ challenge to monitor, reinforce, strategize, motivate, and promote a collective culture and
familial environment through the fidelity of resources and services, starting with the DCS
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
162
stakeholders with daily, personal TAY interaction. One focus group member articulated a
consensus view of the organizational attempt to protect and promote daily and nightly life at the
TAY residences. An FG3 member discussed another DCS experience that was offering specific
strategies to meet the sociological and psychological needs of the TAY learner:
These girls come in with all their earthly belongings in a black plastic garbage bag. So,
one of the things they had they had gotten donations for was luggage . . . we'll give them
suitcases on wheels or duffel bags with the wheels. They tried to make them feel like kids
almost as if it wasn't childlike. They're actually doing YouTube videos for the girls to
actually, you know, to instruct the girls and how to do the activities. I mean even they're
showing me in their bathrooms and they've got a big bathroom and they wanted to put a
tub in there because they said how soothing it is for girls to take a bath. You know, versus
just being in the shower, which is very institutional. We put rope hooks up on the wall,
but we made sure they didn’t have a stub just in case they wanted to try and hang
themselves or something. I mean, this is one of the routes we have to be careful with, you
know, suicides common with some of these kids. (FG3).
It is a shared understanding that building a sustainable, productive, safe, and efficient
experience is an ephemeral effort that requires a collective commitment at every level of service
and support. Administrative interviews data suggest a heightened awareness of the STRTP,
group home services and resources required to provide continual access, maintenance, and
differentiation. A4 stated that the complexity of the KMO factors in play for the TAY learner
constantly require adaptation and assimilation for the TAY learner as well as the DCS
stakeholders modeling. CTS’ document analysis, focus group, and administration show diligence
and concern to maintain and provide sustainable resources to promote the cultural foundation
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
163
that dictates the adaptable and often inconsistent living and learning climate, providing and
teaching social and cultural values (Stolle-McAllister, 2011). Additionally, the data from the
document analysis, focus groups, and administrative interviews indicate not only an awareness or
understanding but also a commitment for enduring, patient, and strategic growth. Culture and
climate factors are shaped by all constituents, and it is this dedication and strategic commitment
that requires constant analysis, adaption, and improvement, communicating the altruistic
endeavors of CTS’ mission. A FG2 member shared a few examples that DCS have addressed
the learner’s needs to encourage college and career readiness skills aligned to CTS’s
commitments:
We've had one girl wants to do hair, she wants to become a cosmetologist. So we bought
a mannequin for her to do the hair with. We've had our girl wanting to take gymnastics,
which is all you know, therapy for these kids. We provided a mat and some other
equipment. They don't have money for those things. STRTP homes have money for
providing basic needs, providing housing beds, whatever, but they don't have monies for
those things. We have requests for hair products for the African American girls. I said I
don't know where to get but if we can get somebody to recommend something, we'll pay
for it. (FG2).
Both focus groups and administrative interviews discussed the necessity of safety for not
only the learning and living factors of the TAY but the working and managing variables of
relevant stakeholders, specifically the DCS. Part of the constant modification and intentional
circumstantial acquiescence to appease TAY concerns to maintain cultural peace and safety,
there is a risk of fragmenting a cohesive traction toward concrete goals. Document analysis
indicated that feedback is offered to strategize the constant monitoring of the living and learning
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
164
pulse dictating the climate (Mcleod, 2018). The communal resources and services of the TAY
group homes require efforts to accommodate confrontation concerns to maintain the safety
required of progress. Focus group members stated that safety is foundational despite the risk of
derailing progress toward an organizational, stakeholder, or TAY learner objective. One focus
group member admitted the hesitancy in how to effectively navigate temperamental and
unforeseen circumstances to stabilize the safety of the immediate without losing the integrity of
the vision or goal. Also, A2 discussed the varied bureaucratic responsibilities and philosophies at
work at the organizational level affecting knowledge and motivational factors:
There's a lot of training out there right now. So when you look at, let's just look at the
substance abuse world. So when you look at where we've come from, no tolerance to
harm reduction. Right? They don't talk. The belief system in no tolerance versus harm
reduction is that, you know, it's giving up your power to God. There’s a feeling that you
can't keep using harm reduction. Let’s go with kids, we know they're smoking pot, we're
going to talk about it, we're going to figure out the risks, we're going to reduce the risks,
we're going to have conversations about, maybe you're doing it too much while you're
doing it in the middle of the day. So harm reduction and substance abuse are already at
sort of, you know, where are we going with this. And they both work, and they both work
for different people. They're just approaches. And we can't come up with what's right.
But they are at odds.
So we're not even at that level of conversation at a foster care situation. Right, so I
go back to my clinical and spiritual lens. Because harm, like harm reduction in approach,
you could say, is spiritual, but it’s a whole different way of looking at it. But if you look
at foster care, a lot of the trainings that we're doing, again, are clinical in nature, because
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
165
there are major rules about how they communicate with people, with youth. Who's going
to be there? What's it look like? What's it? What am I telling them all liabilities in the
checkmarks? All of that, right? So if you really look at it as a system, we've gone so far
with clinical liability, that this spiritual aspect doesn't exist.
So if, and again, I go with just relationship, we believe in relationship. and
honesty. Well, they can't ask the kids to be honest. Because then there's consequences and
there's consequences with liability and all that. I can't work with a high-risk kid, if they're
not being honest with me. Sure. If they need to tell me I'm smoking crack, and I need to
deal with it, you know, and work with them. (A2).
Focus group members also addressed that organizational agendas, though unintentional,
often break the continuity of residential efforts by introducing changes or, even, support services
that require temporary readjustment. The volatility of the TAY residential life requires as much
consistency and unified effort to maintain momentum toward living and learning goals. One
focus group member indicated that the organization often tries to help too much, complicating an
already complex situation. Focus group members reinforced the need for, once again, a collective
experience that shapes the culture from top down (Mcleod, 2018). The network needed for
safety and progress is too impressionable and sensitive, being influenced by all relevant members
(Mcleod, 2018). To visualize the socio-cultural and emotional contingencies affecting KMO
barriers, a FG1 member narrated the sociological and psychological stress when some of the
TAY learners are court ordered for parental visitation:
The majority of our parents came from families that cannot pass criminal background
checks. Therefore, we often have social workers working seven days a week to complete
their normal workloads and provide visitation to parents on weekends or after hours.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
166
There are also some families that are just not visiting at all, which means a kid has no
visible family support or care. They are normally monitored in neutral public settings
such as local park, or even a restaurant.
And so when a parent goes to visit a kid, some of these parents don't get to visit
the kids, unless there's somebody they accompany them, because the kids are taken away
from them for a reason. So you just basically just sit there, and it makes sure that the
child stays safe, you have to show up there and just kind of be near to make sure that you
know, cuz like court orders that somebody has to be there when the mother visits with the
child. It's specific, it's a specific to the judge's orders.
So if the judge says grandma can be the monitor or the supervisor, then grandma
can bring the kids to the visit, and supervise that if she's been authorized by the judge or
Family Court. If there is no one neutral like that, that the judge feels comfortable with
Mom, let's just say it's a parent, two parents, mother, father, Mom will show up with the
child and dad will come for the visit. But then we would act as the supervisor during,
there might be a restraining order.
So she walked so far, and then you guide the child the rest of the way to dad, and
then you just kind of hang back, like maybe six feet, just give him a little bit of personal
space. Sometimes there's even more specific instructions, like don't leave the kids
personal space, like sit down, sit there with them. And sometimes it's he can be six feet
away, or 20 feet away as you could visibly see them.
It kind of depends. But that's the gist of it is you're just really just sitting there
making sure nothing goes sideways. And if it does you get on the phone with the
authorities. A lot of supervision visits happen in public places, because they can feel sort
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
167
of in a dangerous position themselves and are helpless if the dad, I'm just using dad and
I'm just using these examples. It could be the mom with the problem, but they can feel
intimidated if dad grabs the child and runs. You know, you feel pretty helpless. (FG1).
The complexity of the TAY learner’s STRTP living and learning environment must be a
collective effort by pertinent stakeholders and a holistic instructional design that accommodates
the deep, complex ecology of the child. A collective effort and collective pedagogy is required
to address the whole learner and whole KMO proposition/s.
Organizational Collaboration. “In the long history of humankind (and animal kind,
too), those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed” (Darwin
Center for Biogeology, 2021). CTS’ document analysis reported on organizationally driven
collaborative opportunities as a directive embedded in external and internal professional learning
modules. As stated, dedicating time to reinforce a consistent and progressive collaborative
model, outside what typically occurs from the occasional and formal professional learning
collaboration, is a challenge to isolate the time with strategic focus on learning from the
collaborative process. One focus group member indicated that there is an organizational intent to
capitalize on the collaborative process, but outside the infrequent and artificial versions practiced
in formal settings, the process breaks down when faced with addressing the realities of daily
TAY expectations and necessary resources and services.
The administrative interviews articulated this same time-deficient challenge regarding the
practical and effective practice of collaboration beyond the formal context. A2 stated that there
is constant debriefing at the residential and organizational level, but this time is a regrouping
with a STRTP directive rather than the fostering of relationships and building motivation and
confidence concerning day-to-day activities and requirements. Both focus groups and
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
168
administrators discussed the need to forcibly commit to an isolated, protected time to capture and
cultivate the cultural and collective value of the collaborative process. CTS’ outspoken and
consistent commitment to dedicated collaborative activities will generate faith in the mission,
build authentic relationships that impact culture and climate, and model networking and
relationship skills integral for TAY autonomy. A2 discusses a success story that is faithful to the
CTS mission, a manifestation of TAY autonomy that benefitted from witnessing and mimicking
healthy, trusting relationships among the DCS:
I just like, human stories. I guess that's how I got to where I am now. It's motivating to
me to hear people's stories that can be pain or joy. And then it's motivating for me to see
them transform. That's probably the best but my lenses have changed.
So there was a kid that lived with me for Oh, my gosh, I think he lived with me
for a year and a half, Mom abandoned him. So this kid taught me more than anybody
else. But, but the reality is, when I look back after now doing this for a long time, I think,
what do you what do you do here? This kid is 10 years out now. Fast forward, six
children with one [partner], lovely. This is someone who actually should be in prison for
life.
I learned a lot about unconditional love, through that story and about the empty
hole inside of someone that doesn't have parents and doesn't have an attachment, like the
one parent kids are different than the two parents. And really, really learned that if I was
going to do this work, it's there's no way to replace that hole. There's no way to give it so
much that the hole is gone. So I still believe that kid transformed me, maybe more than I
did the other way. (A2).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
169
CTS’ diverse services and resources were shared with focus groups and administrative
interviews as a necessary extension and amplification of the STRTP group home facilities. A2
stated that there needs to be more time to access, share, and learn from the different CTS
departments. One focus group member stated that it is encouraging, on an emotional level, to
know that their efforts are part of a larger effort impacting many people in real need for the
present and future—a generational influence. Both focus groups and administrative dialogue
reinforced the power to allow for collaborative opportunities that celebrate different CTS
machinery and capitalize on the many talented and dedicated personnel working at other CTS
facilities. A3 stated that there are so many untapped resources within just the personnel.
Fostering collegiality with lateral collaboration would be impactful to unify and solidify
organizational and residential responsibilities.
Organizational Engagement. As stated, choice is connected to effort and persistence.
Strategic design to corral stakeholder engagement is foundational to buy-in and objective
attainment and utility value (Tomlinson, 2017). However, the design and instructional strategies
are to be vetted by data and in alignment with adopted organizational values (Yough &
Anderman, 2010). The collaborative advantage is tied with stakeholder engagement but relative
to the utility value of the instructional strategies. An organizational effort to include the
practitioner in professional learning development addresses engagement of choice with the
fidelity of research-based approaches (Tomlinson, 2017).
Document analysis, focus group, and administrative interview data indicate an intentional
integration of choice-driven instructional practices to include input and feedback from
participants. This suggests a consistent attainment and utility value related to organizational goal
orientation (Yough & Anderman, 2010). One focus group member stated that professional
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
170
learning opportunities seem to be aware of the power of choice for engagement purposes for the
possibility of long-term effort and persistence. Additionally, the focus groups discussed that
effective engagement ideas and strategies should be the product of collaborative brainstorming
between all levels of participants, from designer to practitioner (i.e., administration,
management, lead-faculty, DCS, and TAY learner).
The quantitative power of technology in professional learning design was seen as a
necessary backbone to drive engagement practices. Document analysis, focus groups, and
administrative data indicate that building and designing professional learning should be funneled
through digital reporting for initial engagement and post-analysis. An attempt to quantify even
qualitative feedback in professional design is an inevitability of the modern, data-driven age, and
a familiar medium for participant interaction. CTS’ document analysis matches focus group and
administrative statements about the intentional integration of technology to act as the primary
vehicle for engagement, data collection, synthetic analysis, and evaluation of findings. One focus
group member commented that technology is a given and preferable. In fact, if the professional
learning does not attempt to catalog the data and use the proficiency of a medium that has
become familiar and engaging, then the integrity of instrumentation seems archaic and
unprepared.
Focus groups and administrative interview dialogue indicate a shared, collaborative
responsibility in the willingness and desire to improve professional learning opportunities with
participant engagement as a necessity for ownership and strength of application. Though
imperfect relative to organizational and residential requirements, data suggest a fidelity of
funding and intentional organizational commitment to include and engage stakeholder
involvement. All focus groups acknowledged CTS’ attempt to include and engage participants,
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
171
especially centered around accountability findings and TAY learner attainment and utility value
(Yough & Anderman, 2010). Lastly, focus group members collectively agreed that
organizational funding efforts suggest a priority to use creative approaches to provide engaging,
progressive, and practical professional development. A3 stated that the attention and awareness
are there to provide valued, pragmatic, entertaining modules; however, the balance between
utility and engagement can be a complicated balance. A3 addressed the practicality between
achieving both utility and attainment while fostering intrinsic mastery (Senko et al., 2011).
CTS’ data indicate a strategic attempt and heightened awareness of the need for
differentiated instruction developed from a collaborative model. Both focus groups and
administrators discussed the balance between accommodating the preferences of all and the
discretion of utilitarian strategies that entice, promote ownership, and produce real, impactful
results for TAY development. The elusive resource of time which exacerbates the inefficiency of
available resources are the greatest challenges to provide effective collaborative time when
devoting or allocating resources for professional support. A2 discussed the inefficiency of
resources that lead to limited timeslots for professional learning:
I think these systems are way over funded. I think education is way over funded. The
kind of waste I see in these systems is crazy. For example, I will call for an aid or an
assistant or something. There's a funded person that is associated with these kids in ratios.
Right? Well, so why don't they follow the kids to school, they're getting paid? Yeah. Why
would they not be in the classroom helping? That's a total waste of resources. Instead of
like in special ed, in concept, where they get a one on one aid and the person is there to
help the teacher and they're there to help all with the conflict resolution. You got a whole
staff on staff during school day. (A2).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
172
Time constraints, wasted resources, as stated, exist in the practical availability of daily residential
life, the coordination of relevant team members, and organizational sponsorship. Accountability
is a powerful and ethical resource that adds more relevance to the need for objective instructional
designs that audit professional learning for continued revision, achievement, and application for
the DCS stakeholder and future TAY autonomous citizen. Table 10 provides a summary of
assumed organizational influences.
Summary of KMO Gaps
Knowledge and Skills
Data analysis, focus group dialogue, and administrative interviews address application,
analysis, synthesis, and evaluation critique related to declarative, procedural, and metacognitive
factors influencing professional learning design and integration. Triangulation of data of
organizational professional learning documentation (i.e., external and internal) and DCS
stakeholder deployment, feedback, and progressive integration for TAY assimilation uncovers
and highlights differing generalizations for refinement while applying specific and objective
value related to the professional learning objectives and organizational mission commitments.
Varying objective data-driven professional learning results with review and critique from
applicable stakeholder participants allows for the filtering of effective differentiated, choice-
driven instructional input to guide CTS’ organizational integration of research-driven learning
resources and services. The data suggest that intentional, strategic points of instructional input
from varied levels of relevant stakeholders impact a holistic cultural, climate-sensitive ownership
with choice-driven modules. The organizational effort to improve and validate professional
learning adoption and refinement is a collective experience that balances the subjective,
qualitative input from the participants with objective, concrete organizational determination. It is
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
173
the balancing of abstract stakeholder factors with data-driven, scientific methodology that guides
the professional learning design and development, rooted in research and accountable to
organizational regulations, policies, and mission values.
Declarative knowledge is focused on refinement of “Need” and relevant “Validated”
approaches for stakeholder and TAY ownership (see Table 4, 6, & 8). CTS’ desire-centered
professional learning objectives that nurture self-advocacy and regulation among pertinent
stakeholders are focused and, ultimately, valued in a tangible measurement of self-reliance and
resilience for TAY learning (Ambrose et al., 2010). Anticipating cognitive biases and attrition
(e.g., Cognitive Load Theory) reframes the instructional context to accommodate influencing
factors (e.g., “split-attention” or multiple “modalities”) (Kirschner et al., 2006).
Declarative content and cognitive science strategies address organizational
responsibilities to provide effective professional learning indicated in the focus group and
administrative data. The data suggest an intentional curriculum teaching cognitive science would
be impactful for fostering ownership and addressing correlative KMO variables while rooting
design in data-driven techniques and relative pedagogical strategies (e.g., Quota Schemes, Piece-
rate Schemes, Tournament Schemes, Flat-rate schemes) (Clark & Estes 96-97).
As stated, incorporating cutting-edge cognitive research and complementary pedagogy
can powerfully influence personal and professional learning. Cross-disciplinary application is
the intentional unification of content to address declarative access and application, not only in
deliberate, cross-disciplined correlation but in articulating organizational accountability
regarding compliance and regulatory responsibilities. The data indicate a reinforcement of
pedagogical strategies with a holistic, cross-curricular consideration to reinforce content
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
174
cohesion for stakeholder competence impacting the TAY learner (Conley & Darling-Hammond,
2013; O’Day, 2002) while accommodating ecological KMO factors (Bronfenbrenner, 2009).
Declarative DCS and TAY alignment accountability are concerned with the promotion
of designs that vet instrumentation and methodology to refine and improve stakeholder resources
(Conner & Rabovsky, 2011). The data suggest that objective methodology promotes reciprocity
and differentiated instruction tailored to the individual (Conley & Darling-Hammond 2013).
Consistency in an evaluative protocol for familiar, intentionally chosen content and delivery
promotes clarity, reduces cognitive attrition, and increases application for stakeholder ownership
(Romzek & Dubnick, 1987). Declarative knowledge concerns center around the reasons
impeding quick, automatic identification for procedural and metacognitive value for all
constituents (Scott & Palinscar, 2006).
Procedural knowledge assumptions are outlined in the associated tables under “Need”
and relevant “Validated” approaches (see Table 4, 6, & 8). Evaluation and Feedback data are
rooted in constructive, collegial “feedback” (Clark & Estes, 2008). Collaborative opportunities
address subcategories components in Assumptions, Needs, and Validations. Data suggest that
collaboration is an integral component to increase differentiated instruction, improve goal
orientations, bridge declarative and procedural gaps, and incorporate deliberated quantitative and
qualitative instructional techniques (Dyer et al., 2011). The data suggest that networking
strategies will promote engagement and interest with long-term value. As stated, the results
indicate that collaborative feedback is a vehicle to cultivate collegiality and familial
identification while accessing the collective power of networking attributes—a validated strategy
with cultural and academic ramifications (Dyer et al., 2011).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
175
The data concerning metacognitive knowledge address strategic self-monitoring schema
to maximize learning proficiency (Ambrose et al., 2010). The findings suggest the intentional
integration of strategies that promote individual self-regulation—recognizing, adjusting, and
implementing awareness of knowledge factors (Ambrose et al., 2010). Metacognitive knowledge
assumptions, needs, and validated solutions are concerned with reflection, self-regulation,
identification of socio-cultural and emotional impediments related to cognitive taxonomy, and
self-imposed self-regulation skills that capitalize on differentiated learning opportunities while
intentionally minimizing distractions that frustrate learning efficacy—avoiding redundancy,
identification of cognitive attrition, and reducing mental fatigue (see Table 4, 6, & 8). The data
suggest a defined integration of metacognitive schema development to place and hold the
individual learner’s cognitive health and proficiency initiated and maintained by the learner.
Developing a differentiated protocol of self-aware and self-regulated strategies will address
taxonomical content while designing the learning module/s with identified socio-cultural
contingencies (Brown et al., 2013) and socio-emotional factors (Gasiewski et al., 2011). A
reconciliation of the learner’s place, competence, energy, and cognitive health, related to the
overlapping qualities impacting KMO performance, capitalizes on learning values, self-
monitoring strategies, content adoption, and TAY modeling (Pajares, 2010; Senko et al., 2011).
Metacognitive reflection and goal orientations drive the learner’s metacognitive
schema with self-imposed boundaries dictated by context: specific, measurable, achievable,
relevant, and time-bound (Doran, 1981). Additionally, beyond the individual goal-defining, the
data suggest the value of goal-collaboration to reinforce personal integration as a necessary
ingredient of building team culture. This broader, collaborative outcome initiated by individual
metacognition affects the larger, generic organizational objectives (Clark & Estes, 2008).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
176
Tapping the individual stakeholder’s “energy” to power a broader context complements a
collaborative theme indicated in all KMO domains (Dufour, 2004). Providing candid feedback
shapes organizational learning justification with differentiated input and collaborative
representation (Clark & Estes, 2008). It is a value of encouraging and practicing deductive and
inductive accountability—funneling from both ends with relevant data and collective
participation—maximizing individual and organizational goals through reflection, editing, and
adaptation for effective TAY transfer.
Motivation
The data concerning motivation provide quantitative measurements to abstract variables
(Clark and Estes, 2008, p. 80). As indicated in metacognitive strategies, motivational tendencies
represent tangible manifestations the learner attempts to identify and anticipate cognitive
adjustments (Senko et al., 2011). The data indicate strategies that coordinate macro abstractions
with subtle motivational variables affecting achievement (Rueda, 2011) (see Table 4, 6, & 8).
The data yielded clarity on how professional learning is impacted due to unidentified yet present
learning impediments (Clark & Estes, 2008; Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Goddard et al.,
2014; Senko et al., 2011). The data suggest that choice, effort, and persistence are obstructed by
the stakeholder learner’s competing attributions and contingencies (Clark & Estes, 2008; Ryan
&n Deci, 2000; Senko et al., 2011). As stated, motivational findings and reinforced efforts to
employ anticipated concerns were guided by varied factors: choice selection, goal values, socio-
cultural and emotional influences, schema integration, cognitive attrition, data-driven pedagogy,
and collaboration (see Table 6, 8 & 9). Findings promote the consistency of collaborative
opportunities, differentiated advice, cross-curricular application, and reinforcement of identified
metacognitive goals that affect motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Data suggest the commitment
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
177
of organizational resources to support culturally impactful learning with shared practices and
collective accountability. Consistency in learning content will aid in motivational choice, effort,
and persistence (Clark & Estes, 2008; Ryan &n Deci, 2000; Senko et al., 2011).
DCS stakeholder ownership reiterates the collaborative value of shared experiences and
borrowed schema development that impact motivational factors. As discussed in organizational
gaps, the administration is the key resource to dedicate the fidelity of services to drive long-term
professional learning decisions. The data indicate that CTS would benefit from activating onsite
practitioners as local experts that aid in the design and implementation of professional learning,
increasing direct agency (Senko et al., 2011). The data suggest that building leaders within the
organizational paradigm through professional learning feedback, collaboration, and delivery
modes affect ownership, address differentiated perspectives, and articulate a collective agency to
meet organizational commitments (see DCS Stakeholder Identified Learning Modalities;
DCS Stakeholder Collaboration).
Organization
Organizational Document Analysis audits CTS’ historical considerations to address
accountability regulations and policies in varied contexts (see Table 4, 6, & 8). The data testify
to the organizational efforts to address a consistent and progressive professional learning
protocol as to meet and exceed federal, state, and county regulations (e.g., MediCal, compliance,
Program Quality Improvement, Title VI, HIPAA, standards of conduct, quality assurance, CQI
workgroups, retention of records, performance plans, governmental corrective action,
disciplinary procedures, non-compliance reporting, and cultural competency plans) (CTS, 2020).
CTS’ documented efforts indicate a concern to address issues of equity and data-driven
pedagogy. Findings suggest that CTS’ internal and external professional learning considerations
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
178
align and provide a historical continuity that encourage collaboration, unified disciplines, cross-
disciplinary content and skill utility, promotable goal values, incentivization, and cultural and
climate efforts to build “community” (see table 6) (Dubnick, 2014, p. 13).
Organizational motivation measures are analyzed via internal document analysis (e.g.,
onsite meeting agendas, professional learning agendas, organization memos, and administrative
evaluations). The data indicate continued effort to target cooperative ownership and effort to
access stakeholder’s choice in professional learning designs. The data suggest that organizational
measures should continue to communicate the justification of content and delivery. Professional
learning can be too diverse and feel fragmented from larger or initial goals.
The data suggest a simplification of choice protocol aided by a limitation of available
strategies and targeted modalities. Findings indicate a need to provide uniformity and cohesion
yet with a differentiated learning experience that is not overwhelming with diversity (Vogel-
Walcutt et al., 2011). As stated, vetting learning opportunities would help to stratify objectives
while counteracting cognitive overload (Vogel-Walcutt et al., 2011).
Organizational climate and culture data reinforce the research that culture and climate
are foundational to the efficacy of instructional designs (Ambrose et al., 2010; Clark & Estes,
2008; Mcleod, 2018; Rueda, 2011; Stolle-McAllister, 2011; Tomlinson, 2017). The complexity
of the TAY learner makes it a heightened issue to foster collective commitments, impacting the
learning and living of cooperative resources. KMO variables of the TAY learner require a
collective cultural experience to ensure safety, sincerity, and authenticity—an intentional effort
to build and model “social and cultural capital” (Stolle-McAllister, 2011, p. 12).

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
179
Organizational Collaboration data report a past and present effort to deliberately use
feedback from relevant stakeholders that provide the architecture of professional learning. An
organizational effort to allocate resources of time for collaborative inquiry is a pragmatic
problem of daily accommodation. The collective agency of organizational input to guide the
direction of professional learning suggests allotment of extensive resources that ensure the
uncompromising commitment to access the power of the collaborative “groupthink” (Mcleod,
2018).
Consequentially, dedication to the collaborative process accesses factors of
organizational engagement. The correlation between the connected effort and persistence with
stakeholder choice address long-term engagement manifested in every KMO domain. As stated,
it is foundational to buy-in and objective attainment and utility value (Tomlinson, 2017). The
data indicate that organizational support is paramount to act as an unwavering sponsor to the
collective experience. Organizational involvement with provisional resources provide the license
to access differentiated input from available constituents, helping to minimize KMO barriers
prevalent in professional learning (Tomlinson, 2017). Through organizational commitment to the
collective experience, accountability concerns are addressed progressively with non-punitive
consequences, communicating an organizational belief in the power and ethics demanded of an
objective instructional paradigm with long-lasting, equitable results (see Table 10).
Summary
Document analysis, focus group dialogue, and administrative interview data triangulate
KMO assumed influences that consider assumptions, causes, and validations affecting
personalized professional learning (see Table 8, 9, & 10). A summary table that synthesizes that
data regarding assumed, validated, and non-validated needs addresses KMO factors from a
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
180
stakeholder and organizational accountability (see Table 11). In both the finding’s narratives and
categorical tables, assumed needs data highlight stakeholder and organizational proficiencies and
deficiencies across KMO domains (see Table 8, 9, & 10). Additionally, the findings report levels
of validated and non-validated variables influencing professional learning design and
implementation (see Table 8, 9, & 10). Chapter Five reports on Chapter Four’s findings relative
to proposed solutions, implementations, and evaluations. (For a list of term definitions and
acronyms, see Appendix N).

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
181
Table 8. Summary of DCS Stakeholder Findings & Results for Validating Assumed Influences – Knowledge
Assumed KMO Needs: Stakeholder Validation Strategies
Knowledge (Declarative)
• Stakeholders do not have factual knowledge of cognitive science, types of knowledge, and learning barriers for TAY learner
• Stakeholders do not know the factual terminology of pedagogical instructional strategies, designs, and complex content (e.g.,
literary terms used to provide objective and subjective formative and summative intervention strategies) for TAY learner
• Stakeholders do not have factual and conceptual knowledge and application of pedagogical or statistical research measurements
(e.g., interviews, surveys, quizzes) to qualitatively measure abstract values of motivation, content usability, interest, effective test
taking strategies, self-regulation, self-confidence for TAY transfer
• Stakeholders do not know the implications of TAY high school graduation standardized test scoring (e.g., CAASP) in relationship
to skill-based level descriptors and college or post-secondary skill-based skills for employment
Knowledge (Procedural)
• Stakeholders do not know effective strategies to promote personalized instruction with varied, differentiated approaches to
promote performance and mastery goal values
• Stakeholders do not know how to read, annotate, synthesize, and produce an effective product based on specific measured
standards for effective modeling
• Stakeholders do not possess the knowledge of the techniques or methodology to identify complex content (e.g., persona,
audience, action, purpose) to translate the components for synthetic and evaluative understanding related college and career
readiness standards for effective TAY modeling
• Stakeholders are not familiar with data collection methodology for analysis of performance and mastery achievement to refine
and direct instructional practices
• Stakeholders do not know effective collaborative strategies to promote engagement and interest within the context of personal and
professional learning for effective TAY modeling
Knowledge (Metacognitive)
• Stakeholders do not know how to reflect on their own discovery of new content meaning and learning strategies for TAY learner
Stakeholders do not know how to evaluate their own strengths and challenges within relationship to strategizing and uncovering
content and personalized schema related to all levels of cognitive taxonomy
• Stakeholders are not aware of their own (goals, interest, judgments, stereotypes, etc.) in relationship to their individual learning
deficiencies and strengths related to attributions and contingencies
• Stakeholders do not self-regulate their incremental approach to specific content and integrated schema
• Stakeholders do not have knowledge about the general strategies they use for learning— (lack of performance self-awareness)
• Stakeholders do not monitor progress of improvement in itemized descriptors and specific intervention strategies for TAY learner
Stakeholders do not adjust strategies to accomplish the most effective access to correct information or skill-based achievement to
avoid redundancy, learning attrition, and mental fatigue for effective TAY modeling
(K: DPM) Question 1: What experience
or training do you have related to how a
learner learns? (i.e., cognitive science,
types of knowledge, and learning
barriers).
• Document Analysis & Focus Groups: All four focus group dialogue
shared a wide variety of pre-existing training prior to employment.
Additionally, the consensus in a focus group members stated that there
are formal and informal professional learning opportunities; however,
the content rarely analyzes and incorporates cognitive science
development with related research-driven pedagogical strategies.
• Validated as a barrier - Yes
(K: DPM) Question 2: As practitioners,
what experience or training have you
received in practicing and using
teaching strategies? (i.e., pedagogical
instructional strategies, designs, and
formative/summative assessments).
• Document Analysis & Focus Groups: All four focus groups discussed
that most professional learning addresses TAY regulations regarding
specific services and resources. There is increasing professional
learning that does attempt to engage and measure TAY achievement.
All focus group members articulated a variety of explicit pedagogical
experiences. All focus groups discussed the need to increase and
provide more consistent professional learning in formal and informal
contexts of TAY transfer.
• Validated as a barrier – Partially
(K:DPM) Question 3: How often are
you challenged with educational content
that might limit your ability to help
guide and instruct the learner?

• Focus Groups: Related to question 2, all four focus groups
acknowledged access to educational pedagogy for TAY transfer, but
stakeholder confidence/competence was varied, requiring continued
differentiated efforts to provide instructional resources and services.
Also, as indicated in question 2, more instruction and integration of
objective measurements is beneficial for TAY performance.
• Validated as a barrier – Partially
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
182
Table 8 continued. Summary of Stakeholder Findings & Results for Validating Assumed Influences – Knowledge
Assumed KMO Needs: Stakeholder Validation Strategies
(K:DPM) Question 4: What strategies or
tools do you use to help monitor and keep
the learner accountable and encouraged for
educational growth? (i.e., quantitative and
qualitatively measurements: data
collection methodology).
• Focus Groups: CTS does provide accountability measures related to
regulation and policy requirements concerning varied TAY resources
and services. All focus groups discussed the continued need to
provide instruction and integration strategies to quantify the efficacy
of TAY resources and services. Two focus groups discussed
stakeholder/personnel input in methodology and arrowing the
choices with a focus on longevity to support cohesion and continuity.
• Validated as a barrier – Partially
(K:DPM) Question 5: What strategies do
you use to adjust your personalized
instruction or involvement with different
types of personalities, learning styles,
and/or educational goals? (i.e.,
differentiated approaches to promote
performance and mastery goal values).

• Focus Groups: Focus group dialogue indicates access to training to
address socio-emotional and cultural attributions related to
personality management, conflict resolution, goal-planning, and
differentiated learning and living modalities. All focus groups
identified the needed support to address more pedagogical
instruction that impacts the TAY learner beyond the academic
context.
• Validated as a barrier – Partially
(K:DPM) Question 6: How often do you
have the time and the ability to collaborate
with other colleagues concerning effective
strategies to help the learner? (i.e.,
effective TAY modeling).

• Document Analysis & Focus Groups: All four focus groups discussed
the present and continued integration of collaborative opportunities
to evaluate and refine TAY living and learning services and
resources. All focus groups addressed the challenge with integrating
a consistent and determined collaborative regime that focuses on
Questions 1-5 integration of professional learning. There is an
identified request to support the collaborative process from the
organizational perspective regarding objective protocol and funding
to develop performance-specific collaboration, emphasizing culture
and climate development.
• Validated as a barrier – Yes
(K:DPM) Question 7: What personal and
professional strategies are used to identify
and reflect on what learning strategies
work or do not work for the learner? (i.e.,
effective TAY modeling, evaluation of
strengths and challenges).
• Document Analysis & Focus Groups: All focus group members
discussed the need to provide informal reflection to provide valued
and structured feedback for collaborative and instructional design
and implementation. Personal and collective feedback was discussed
as inherently related to the fidelity of objective and diverse feedback.
• Validated as a barrier – Yes
(K:DPM) Question 8: What strategies are
used to define and help encourage personal
and professional goals, interests, and
motivations in your work environment
affecting the learner? (i.e., metacognitive
schema for attributions and contingencies).
• Document Analysis & Focus Groups: All focus groups indicated that
stakeholder value orientations for TAY transfer and
personal/professional development are assumed to be integrated part
of the broader professional learning choices. Focus group dialogue
discussed a more localized focus related to the stakeholder’s
learning to intrinsically affect motivational factors for TAY transfer.
• Validated as a barrier – Yes
(K:DPM) Question 9: What strategies do
you use for self-regulation to accomplish
your diverse job requirements? (i.e., self-
regulation, schema-development for TAY
transfer).
• Focus Groups: Related to question 8 and metacognitive schema, a
targeted focus on self-regulation impacting utility and attainment
factors was discussed by all focus groups. This categorical response
related to self-regulation schema was considered to be an innate
response to individual’s proficiency and efficacy; however, it was
discussed among all four focus groups as a valued target for
metacognitive schema.
• Validated as a barrier – Partially
(K:DPM) Question 10: What training and
strategies do you use to avoid frustration
and encourage the learner? (i.e.,
redundancy, learning attrition, and mental
fatigue for effective TAY modeling).
• Document Analysis & Focus Groups: Related to question 1 and 2
concerning cognitive science, all focus groups discussed training
access that deals with the TAY learner’s living and learning
demeanor. All focus group dialogue addressed the need to label and
provide further professional learning support that shows the
relationship between holistic management of the TAY learner with
research-driven cognitive science.
• Validated as a barrier – Yes
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
183
Table 9. Summary of DCS Stakeholder Findings & Results for Validating Assumed Influences – Motivation
Assumed KMO Needs: Stakeholder Validation Strategies
Motivation
• Stakeholders are not developed in choice selection criteria to address the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of the personal/professional learning
• Stakeholders do not validate nor how to use theoretical/conceptual knowledge introduced in the personal and professional
instructional design: goal values
• Stakeholders are not developed in personal awareness of socio-cultural and emotional influences related to engagement and
personalized schema integration: attributions and contingencies
• Stakeholders are intimidated about the process of intervention content, procedures and policies related to employment and
efficacy of TAY transfer
• Stakeholders lack a heightened awareness of personalized schema and values
• Stakeholders are not self-confident to strategically integrate personalized schema for achievement and TAY modeling transfer
• Stakeholders are not developed to identify cognitive, motivational, and pedagogical strategies for effective TAY intervention
• Stakeholders are not comfortable or confident in collaborative instructional contexts (e.g., PLC) for effective personalized
performance and effective modeling for TAY transfer
(M) Question 11: How much input or
choice do you have in selecting the
‘what’ and ‘how’ of how best to serve
the educational needs of the learner?
• Document Analysis & Focus Groups: Focus group dialogue matches
past CTS efforts to engage a holistic organizational input to drive
instruction; however, validity of choice based on evidence and objective
strategies that affect TAY learning is limited by time restrictions and
professional learning frequency. Continued efforts to design and
implement instructional design from stakeholder input are desirable for
TAY performance and cultural/climate promotion.
• Validated as a barrier – Yes
(M) Question 12: What is the single
most important factor that motivates
you to perform your job
responsibilities?

• Focus Groups: Focus group discussions were varied but consistently
addressed an inherent, intrinsic value personalized to the stakeholder—
driven by worldview. There is a foundational altruistic value that is to
be promoted and resourced to maintain momentum and encouragement
of initial motivation.
• Validated as a barrier – Partially
(M) Question 13: What are the major
social, cultural, and/or emotional
barriers impacting the learner (i.e.,
socio-cultural and emotional attributions
and contingencies).
• Document Analysis & Focus Groups: Documentation and focus group
dialogue discussed past efforts and the increasing professional learning
direction accommodating the social and cultural wellbeing of the TAY
learner and the DCS stakeholder affecting learning and culture/climate
factors. Focus group discussions provided subjective areas of concern
but voiced the value in continued efforts to quantify professional
learning strategies through data-driven instrumentation and
methodology.
• Validated as a barrier – Partially
(M) Question 14: What is the single
most important factor that frustrates you
or impedes you to perform your job
responsibilities?
• Focus Groups: Question 14 had varied responses, but all four focus
groups discussed balancing, due to time constraints, the complex and
diverse job responsibilities associated with the TAY learner’s resources
and services. This is addressed in organizational resources to provide
deliberated time for collaboration, choice-driven instructional design,
and promotion of culture/climate factors.
• Validated as a barrier – Yes
(M) Question 15: How do you remain
confident that your strategies are truly
helping the learner? (i.e., self-confident
to strategically integrate personalized
schema for achievement and TAY
modeling transfer).
• Document Analysis and Focus Groups: Discussion provided a hybrid of
subjective, professional analysis with the acknowledgment of past and
continued objective measurements to meet regulatory standards and
policies and rectify data with TAY performance and mastery goal
values.
• Validated as a barrier – Partially

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
184
Table 10. Summary of DCS Stakeholder Findings & Results for Validating Assumed Influences – Organizational
Focus Groups
Assumed KMO Needs: Stakeholder Validation Strategies
Organization
• CTS’ professional learning and instructional designs need to be supported with the fidelity of resources
• CTS’ policies and procedures need to be effectively communicated are accessible for integration and measured accountability
• CTS’ “intervention campaign” needs to be articulated for alignment with pre-existing mission goals/visions to connect an
historical context
• CTS needs to develop a cohesiveness of the campaign as it relates to stakeholder collaboration, cross-disciplinary content
alignment, and accountable TAY performance and mastery attainment
• CTS needs to promote tangible and intangible incentives for employment retention and cultural sustainment
• CTS needs to address continuity related to professional development and the disconnected stakeholder schedules/resources for
consistent collaboration and effective, timely feedback affecting the fluidity of the program
• CTS needs to acknowledge and routinely integrate strategies that promote motivation, confidence, self-efficacy to validate the
instruction for intrinsic value of the adopted campaign
(O) Question 16: Are you given a clear
educational goal and do you feel the
necessary resources are available? (i.e.,
CTS’ professional learning and
instructional approach and fidelity of
resources).
• Document Analysis and Focus Groups: Discussion addressed goal
focus, resources for goals, and the fidelity and efficacy of resources
meeting TAY learner’s needs and stakeholder performance
requirements. All focus groups addressed past and present efforts
concerning organizational and sire-based objectives; however,
consistency and continuity need to counteract time-constraints and
employee attrition to maintain momentum and progressive performance
goals.
• Validated as a barrier – Partially
(O) Question 17: Are your policies and
procedures clear and relevant to the
learner?
• Document Analysis and Focus Groups: Historical efforts suggest clear
and consistent policy and regulatory compliance. However, the
relevance affecting stakeholder integration and TAY learner transfer
was a concentrated part among all focus groups. An organizational
effort to clarify and bridge theoretical gaps between compliance and
pedagogical efficacy was identified as an organizational focus but
complex in the application and long-term proficiency.
• Validated as a barrier – Partially
(O) Question 18: If applicable, has
previous in-service training or
professional development been
supportive of pre-existing mission
goals/visions?
• Document Analysis & Focus Groups: Related to question 16 and 17,
focus group dialogue commented on historical professional learning
efforts and past, present, and future organizational trajectory related to
the organization’s mission and commitments. Variables affecting
continuity, consistency, and cohesion were discussed pertaining to
regulatory practices and pragmatic efforts necessary for TAY
sustainability.
• Validated as a barrier – Partially
(O) Question 19: Do you feel that your
local goals are in alignment with the
CTS’ larger objectives? (i.e.,
cohesiveness in collaboration, cross-
disciplinary content alignment, and
accountable TAY performance and
mastery attainment).
• Focus Groups: Applying question 18 to an individual stakeholder
response related to local-site and personal goal value. Focus groups
varied in personal and site-based responses related to larger or
broader organizational efforts. Focus groups 1 and 3 discussed a
stronger and clearer communication affecting local-site practice and
organizational direction while all focus group individual responses
were directed first to the local-site objectives and then organizational
ownership. Extending question 13, focus group individual goal values
centered around altruistic efforts that require encouragement,
accountability, and collaborative goal values among site-based focus
and organizational directions.
• Validated as a barrier – Partially
(O) Question 20: Are there personal and
professional incentives offered by CTS?
(i.e. tangible and intangible
incentivization for employment
retention and cultural sustainment).
• Document Analysis & Focus Groups: Incentivization was verified but
varied in the value and efficacy affecting performance and mastery goal
orientations. All focus groups verified past efforts with the validation of
value but continued increasing quality and consistency in incentive-
based motivational efforts.
• Validated as a barrier – Partially

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
185
Table 10 continued. Summary of Stakeholder Findings & Results for Validating Assumed Influences – Organizational
Assumed KMO Needs: Stakeholder Validation Strategies
(O) Question 21: How do you receive
feedback from CTS related to job
responsibilities and is it effective to help
the learner? (i.e., collaboration and
effective, timely feedback affecting the
fluidity of the program).
• Document Analysis & Focus Groups: Organizational efforts validate
present focus group discussion that evaluative and collegial feedback is
integrated with the intended instructional design. The value affecting
change or promoting ownership was varied in focus group responses.
All focus groups indicated the value and continued practice of formal
and informal mediums of accountability. The varied responses
discussed evaluative feedback and the obstacles related to critique and
improvement affecting positive and accepting change for stakeholder
performance and TAY transfer. Focus Group dialogue suggests a
complexity with time-constraints, culture/climate promotion, and
inherent subjective critique simplifying a complex and multi-tiered job
description for TAY ownership. Fostering an accepting, promotable,
benign feedback platform with formal and informal contexts is relative
to administrative oversight and the individual stakeholder/s.
• Validated as a barrier – Partially
(O) Question 22: Are there strategies
CTS uses to promote motivation,
confidence, and self-efficacy among the
DCS (i.e., validate the instruction for
intrinsic value of the adopted
campaign).
• Document Analysis & Focus Groups: Focus group dialogue validates
past organizational efforts to address stakeholder motivation affecting
choice, effort, and persistence. Focus groups commented on promotable
efforts of involvement in instructional design ownership, collaborative
efforts, incentive measures, performance standards, and intrinsic
promotion for professional progress (e.g., leadership development) and
personalized goal orientations.
• Validated as a barrier – Partially

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
186
Table 11. Summary of DCS Stakeholder Findings & Results for Validating Assumed Influences – Organizational
Administrative Interviews
Assumed KMO Needs: Stakeholder Validation Strategies
Organization
• CTS’ professional learning and instructional designs need to be supported with the fidelity of resources
• CTS’ policies and procedures need to be effectively communicated are accessible for integration and measured accountability
• CTS’ “intervention campaign” needs to be articulated for alignment with pre-existing historical mission goals/visions
• CTS needs to develop a cohesiveness of the campaign as it relates to stakeholder collaboration, cross-disciplinary content
alignment, and accountable TAY performance and mastery attainment
• CTS needs to promote tangible and intangible incentives for employment retention and cultural sustainment
• CTS needs to address continuity related to professional development and the disconnected stakeholder schedules/resources for
consistent collaboration and effective, timely feedback affecting the fluidity of the program
• CTS needs to acknowledge and routinely integrate strategies that promote motivation, confidence, self-efficacy to validate the
instruction for intrinsic value of the adopted campaign
(O) Question 1: With the DCS under
your supervision, how and how often do
you give performance feedback? What
methodology and evidence are used to
provide effective and productive
critique?
• Document Analysis & Administrative Interviews: Administrative
evaluations are an integrated filter for regulatory and organizational
accountability. All four administrators discussed varied roles dictated
by perspectives, ranging from external evaluative processes,
organizational oversight, and onsite performance measures. There is in
place methodology and instrumentation for feedback-driven evaluative
revision; however, time-constraints, consistent and progressive
improvement plans, and the inherent value impacting culture/climate
variables affecting performance and mastery goals.
• Validated as a barrier – Partially
(O) Question 2: What tools or strategies
do you use to provide clarity and
promote value of CTS’ organizational
goals? Is there a direct correlation
between clarity of goals and impact on
work culture or climate?
• Document Analysis & Administrative Interviews: Related to
administrative question 1, correlation between organizational goals
shaped by evaluative processes and the personal and professional
learning impact was directly and tangibly noticed by all four
administrators. This is seen as an elusive task paramount to the fidelity
of the TAY living and learning environment and the pervasive impact of
TAY resources and services. It was noted that the impact and efficacy
of concrete organizational strategies were dictated by abstract
leadership approaches that are difficult to transfer from one context to
the other. Finding tools and strategies that articulate the qualitative
clarity and promotable value between one experience requires a
quantitative measurement of collaborative organizational refinement.
• Validated as a barrier – Partially
(O) Question 3: Does the DCS have any
choice or input on instructional
decisions impacting the learner?
• Document Analysis & Administrative Interviews: As validated by the
focus groups, the organizational intent identifies the value and need to
involve as many relevant stakeholders as pertinent to the living and
learning environment. As stated, organizational focus and
determination (e.g., time and consistency) are required to justify a
license for onsite collaborative processes that impact personal and
professional learning modules.
• Validated as a barrier – Partially
(O) Question 4: What incentives does
CTS offer to promote learning and
positively impact the work
environment?
• Document Analysis & Administrative Interviews: Incentivization is
dictated by the level and particular integration of management
oversight. Contextually driven, CTS’ promotion is tied to leadership
opportunities and fulfillment of external and internal policy and
regulatory requirements.
• Validated as a barrier – Partially
(O) Question 5: Does the DCS
employee have opportunities to clarify
and reflect on job performance related
to CTS’ organizational objectives?
• Document Analysis & Administrative Interviews: The collaborative
process related to personalized feedback is a necessary and
acknowledged extension of stakeholder opinion and instructional
design input. Administrative dialogue indicated the limitation by job
description but reinforced the necessary resources to receive feedback
and reflection from the DCS stakeholder
• Validated as a barrier – Partially
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
187
Table 11 continued. Summary of Stakeholder Findings & Results for Validating Assumed Influences – Organizational
Assumed KMO Needs: Stakeholder Validation Strategies
(O) Question 6: How do you help the
DCS maintain motivation and promote
learning related to the learner?
• Administrative Interviews: Motivational focus was tied to internal and
external incentivization by meeting regulatory and policy demands and
acknowledged organizational objectives. Dialogue addressed both
performance-driven goal values to promote intrinsic value of the DCS
stakeholder. The administrative dialogue stated the dynamics of direct/
indirect motivational techniques that promote tangible outcomes with
the organizational intent affecting TAY.
• Validated as a barrier – Partially
(O) Question 7: If applicable, how often
and when was the last time a formal
professional development was offered
for the DCS employee?
• Document Analysis & Administrative Interviews: Responses delineated
between meeting external regulations and compliance policies and
internal organizationally-driven professional learning. Time and
progressive refinement were considered a continual challenge to
provide intrinsically rich instructional content while meeting regulatory
demands beyond the daily and direct TAY services and resources.
• Validated as a barrier – Partially
(O) Question 8: What is the most
motivating or exciting component of
your job description?
• Administrative Interviews: All four administrative responses provided a
reflective progression and constant maintenance of the inherent,
intrinsic value in shaping and delivering the necessary resources and
services impacting the TAY learner. All four interviews discussed a
need for a deliberate maintenance to nurture and sustain the initial
personal ownership rooted in personal, altruistic ethics in serving the
TAY clientele. All four indicated the necessity for personal reflection
and organizational inspiration to value the required commitment and
devotion necessary for TAY promotion.
• Validated as a barrier – Partially
(O) Question 9: What is the greatest
barrier impacting the DCS’s ability to
serve the needs of the learner?
• Administrative Interviews: All four administrators discussed time-
constraints and personnel attrition due to the stakeholder’s personal
demands. Momentum with unity and cohesion is offset by
organizational and onsite fluidity and longevity. The organizational
counteraction is to maintain the safety, happiness, and promotable goal
values that impact the general culture and the personal stakeholder—
CTS opportunity and fidelity of resources.
• Validated as a barrier – Yes
(O) Question 10: How do you clarify a
clear educational goal and do you feel
the necessary resources are available to
the DCS to service the learner? (i.e.,
CTS’ professional learning and
instructional approach and fidelity of
resources).
• Administrative Interviews: As discussed in question 9, organizational
goals impacted by stakeholder cohesion, consistency, and stability
impede organizational objectives regarding clarity, authenticity, and
objectivity. All four administrators indicated the challenge to
counteract and anticipate knowledge and motivational barriers as well
as unexpected personnel management issues that impede progress and
unity. Using internal and external professional learning opportunities
to account for the organizational and onsite KMO health is a collective
and comprehensive stakeholder experience and dedication.
• Validated as a barrier – Partially
(O) Question 11: Are your policies and
procedures clear and relevant for the
DCS employee and relevant to the
learner?
• Administrative Interviews: Dialogue separated performance-driven
obligations as clear but often pedantic and obligatory from the
mastery-orientated values shaped by choice, effort, and persistence
with culture/climate and personalized ownership purpose.
• Validated as a barrier – Partially
(O) Question 12: Are there strategies
CTS uses to promote motivation,
confidence, and self-efficacy among the
DCS employee? (i.e., validate the
instruction for intrinsic value of the
adopted campaign).
• Document Analysis & Administrative Interviews: An organizational
focus of focus group question 22, all administrators acknowledged the
power and influence of organizational transparency, authenticity, and
clarity of general objectives shaping protocol and policy while affecting
environment factors, performance, and mastery values prevalent in the
DCS stakeholder’s KMO factors impacting TAY transfer.
• Validated as a barrier – Partially
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
188
CHAPTER FIVE:
SOLUTIONS, IMPLEMENTATIONS, AND EVALUATIONS
KMO Solutions Overview
KMO improvements are addressed through initial pedagogical theory for the DCS
stakeholder and applied to CTS’ organizational goals and TAY practice. The stakeholder
functioning as modeling facilitator will benefit from collaboration to strategize and disseminate
content for the TAY student, targeting specific standards-based skills. The stakeholder will
acquire “how-to” knowledge and skills and the need to practice corrective feedback to help
achieve specific work goals in relation to practicing KMO strategies and TAY comprehension
and performance (Rueda, 2011). Addressing TAY KMO transfer, the following findings propose
validated strategies indicating the DCS stakeholder are to be introduced, taught, modeled,
reinforced, and measured incrementally for “guided practice” and “guided feedback” from peer
and/or collegial evaluations. For example, teacher-modeling that guides instruction and lays the
foundation for TAY learning strategies will eventually facilitate instruction as the TAY students,
individually or in peer groups, practice self-efficacy skills reinforced through the metacognitive
domain (Pajares, 2010). The KMO domains are complemented by Cognitive Load Theory (CLT)
(Kirschner, et al., 2010) that elongates the process to reduce information and redundancy;
however, the modeling is centered on the concepts of Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) (Allal &
Ducrey, 2000) that emphasize improved learning “of joint activities [which] internalize[s] the
effects of working together” (e.g., Sociocultural Theory) (Scott & Palincsar, 2006, p.1).
Evaluation and Feedback. Collaboration is crucial to sustainable and efficacious
achievement (Scott & Palincsar, 2006). “What a person does on his own, without being
stimulated by the thoughts and experiences of others, is even in the best of cases rather paltry and
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
189
monotonous” (Albert Einstein, as cited in Dyer et al., 2011 p. 113). Personal and professional
learning chosen without objective evaluation or from a subjective selection process is absent of
collegial collaboration and data-driven integration (Scott & Palincsar, 2006). Disenfranchising
integral personnel with the most relative experience results in low-interest content, affecting the
stakeholder’s cognitive and motivational contingencies for TAY transfer (Brown et al., 2013).
Consequently, adoption of a haphazard or trendy curriculum process limits differentiated, TAY
learner-centered instruction, impacting choice, persistence, and mental effort (Pajares, 2010).
Collegial observation and constructive feedback access the power of varied lenses to
consider collaborative perspectives. Dyer et al. (2011) state, “As you observe, . . . actively
engage more than one sense . . .” (p. 110). CTS’ collaborative feedback should be complemented
by deliberated, empirical observational techniques recorded for evaluation and refinement.
Instructing, practicing, and reinforcing empirical strategies increase the efficacy of the
collaborative experience (Alkin & Vo, 2017; Scott & Palincsar, 2006). Collaboration aids in
capturing full observational contexts, cataloging qualitative analysis, interpreting findings
framed by worldview, and posing relevant questions (e.g., implications, analogous application).
Applying patience, diligence, and data-driven techniques increases stakeholder adoption
and implementation (Scott & Palincsar, 2006). If the process is placed without the fidelity of
resources, then CTS’ personal and professional learning strategies are prone to an adverse effect:
increasing disparity between site-based teaching modules and incongruity of organizational
objectives and stakeholder integration for TAY utility. If adoption and integration of content or
protocol (i.e., feedback collaboration) are interpreted as haphazard or a randomization of selected
policies, then the lack of trust will impact integration and negatively affect stakeholder and TAY
learner performance and intrinsic application (Alkin & Vo, 2017; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
190
Defining Goals and Fidelity of Resources. Catmull and Wallace (2014) state, “There is
nothing quite like ignorance combined with a driving need to succeed to force rapid learning” (p.
45). It is not atypical for organizational accountability to rush a natural integration of effective
strategies. Consequently, the urgency devalues the process by committing to business policies
not directly rooted in and by the design of the adopted protocol. To protect from unvetted
instructional techniques, the organization requires tactics that anticipate the need to deploy
strategic countermeasures to protect external validity and instrument reliability (McEwan &
McEwan, 2003). The lack of “a defining goal” compounded with a hasty timeline and lack of
accessible ancillary resources is detrimental to the viability of a professional learning design
(Catmull & Wallace, 2014, p. 45).
However, it is axiomatic, from an organizational accountability lens, that understanding
the context of the “job” with the objective of performance is foundational to observing those
“hire[d] . . . . to do the job as effectively, conveniently, and inexpensively as possible” (Dyer et
al., 2011, 92). To rush the authenticity of an exercise (i.e., observational feedback) due to a
myriad of organizational factors is to undermine or sabotage the essence of the strategy’s
purpose and importance. As stated by Robinson (2004), “To know something is essentially to
know the cause of it . . .” (p. 53). CTS’ observational protocol will only be “validated” if the
“cause” remains essential to the existence of the collaborative process and its “effectual”
outcomes. This is the value of an “anthropological investigation” that forces the observer into an
immersive, first-person descriptive narrative, interacting with the intimacy of the context (Dyer
et al., 2011) and acting as a witness to observable human attributions (Anderman & Anderman,
2010).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
191
Assumptions and validating strategies anticipate the lack of fluidity, despondency, and
inherent frustration of professional training—especially the vulnerable context of observation
and/or evaluation. Essentially, it comes down to time or, rather, the lack of time. The “system”
(e.g., policies, legislation, residential management, pedagogical restraints, stakeholder
contingencies, and TAY attrition) rushes curriculum adoption, followed by ineffective training,
and culminating with inevitable disappointment convoluted by inconsistent self-regulation and
misaligned resilience—challenging the stakeholder’s professional integrity. Without the patient,
intelligent design and deployment of observational critique, there will be an inevitable void
accessing the personal, emotional, and intellectual integration of observation necessary to “fuel
inspiration . . . [and] keeps us creating rather than copying” (Catmull & Wallace, 2014, p. 198).
The immeasurable concern is the personal toll it takes on overall job satisfaction.
Anthropological Investigations and Microaggressions. Anderman & Anderman (2010)
highlight the importance of understanding unique anthropological “attributions” (p. 1). The
anthropological consideration, suggested in Dyer et al. (2011), reinforces that observational
integrity requires consideration of socio-cultural “microaggressions” (Brown et al., 2013, p. 1)
and socio-emotional variables (Gasiewski et al., 2011) impacting learner and learning context.
This is the personal toll impacted by these microaggressions that demoralize a once dedicated,
exuberant STRTP stakeholder committed to shaping the malleable TAY learner. For example,
Kirschner et al. (2006) discuss how cognitive processing can be affected by hard to observe
external and internal frustrations. Observational techniques stress an outward response of
cognitive attrition, an overloading of information that results in frustration by the learner while
dictating the learning climate. CTS’ collaborative integration should anticipate the need to
cognitively readjust, metacognitively counteract, and motivationally recommit energy for all
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
192
involved stakeholders (Scott & Palincsar, 2006). Consequently, realignment affects the
proficiency of expert-to-novice transfer of the training design, impeding automaticity (Kirschner
et al., 2006).
Differentiated Choice, Persistence, and Effort. If the holistic anthropological approach
(Dyer et al. 2011) results in the observation of academic, social, and emotional factors that lead
to frustration and disillusionment of the collaborative design, the observer should consider
choice, persistence, and mental effort solutions (Rueda, 2011). All stakeholders are susceptible to
professional distortions and fighting a pedagogical entropy, eroding value and purpose
(Kirschner et al., 2006). Choice, persistence, and mental effort are part of the anthropological
observation and should be integral to CTS’ instructional design and training. A professional
learning design not prepared to support the stakeholder’s personalized ownership will result in
physical, emotional, intellectual, and spiritual discouragement (Pajares, 2010). When the
observational assessment is authentic, catered to the anthropological research, “. . . our
preconceived notions . . . keep cliches at bay . . . . [and] what would be lost on the audience [or
learner]. . . . just feels right” (Catmull & Wallace, 2014, p. 198). It is the “microdetail” in the
delivery that accommodates the varied learning factors and aids in personalizing the professional
training to be sustainable, efficient, and inspirational (Catmull & Wallace, 2014, p. 198).
Professional Networking. Effective and strategically fortified collaborative feedback
directly impacts culture and increases performance and mastery goal orientations (Senko et al.,
2011). From a catalyst to evaluate and integrate affective KMO policies to define a consensus
protocol promoting performance and mastery (i.e., intrinsic) goal values (Senko et al., 2011),
professional “networking” accesses the power of collaborative relationships and promotes a
conducive learning environment (Brown et al., 2013). Ibarra (2015) states that networking is a
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
193
“channel” or medium for uncovering deficiencies and recruiting the most effective colleagues to
provide solutions (p. 71). CTS’ current personal and professional learning selection processes
require greater networking opportunities because the absence of collegial collaboration and data-
driven integration results in chosen content with low-interest. An ill-advised, intrinsically
impoverished instructional design affects the DCS and TAY learner’s cognitive energy and
motivation (Brown et al., 2013). As stated, consequently, a less than robust policy or curriculum
process, lacking collaborative uniformity, limits differentiated, stakeholder-centered instruction,
impacting choice, persistence, and mental effort (Pajares, 2010).
“A hallmark of a healthy, creative culture is that its people feel free to share ideas,
opinions, and criticisms” (Catmull & Wallace, 2014, p. 86). Cultivating a work culture that
values candor and is vulnerable to the clarity inherent within forthright critique, no matter how
painful, is committed to viable solutions. If personnel are not a deterrent to the objective, then a
networking approach, even as a small unit, is an effective platform to utilize the power of candid,
constructive criticism (Catmull & Wallace, 2014). A networking selection strategy is to
capitalize on related personnel with different philosophical lenses and organizational
accountability to capture novel and productive solutions pertinent to the identified problem
(Catmull & Wallace, 2014).
Networking Selection Attributes. Lastly, Ibarra (2015) warns to avoid network
selections based on “narcissistic” similarity to tap unbiased opinions for novel application (73).
CTS’ policy and collaborative networking strategies propose factors related to the “operational,
personal, and strategic network” criteria, “purpose,” “location/time frame,” and “key
relationships” (Ibarra, 2015, p. 85). Choosing network members intelligently is like “building a
bridge into a different area of knowledge” by understanding the nuances that affect larger
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
194
objectives (Dyer et al., 2011, p. 116). A strategic networking selection with infrequent
pedagogical access to the researcher is a parallel approach to curriculum adoption and integration
(Dyer et al., 2011). A parallel design utilizes a similar professional field without previous access
and utility. The CTS DCS stakeholder was chosen with a parallel networking value related to job
description and TAY learner access. Despite selecting network candidacy sharing a similar
profession, a parallel approach can still be justified as an “external expert” selection (Dyer et al.,
2011, p. 120).
Willingness and competence are prerequisites to improved performance. Processing
collegial differences concerning worldviews, schema, goal orientations, and moralistic
perspectives that affect pedagogy is a lesson in humility and patience. Catmull and Wallace
(2014) state, “There is a visceral reaction to failure: it hurts . . . . [but] when approached
properly, [failure] can be an opportunity for growth” (p. 108). Anticipating an innate avoidance
of failure, CTS’ stakeholders need to prioritize the job description with personal integrity,
vulnerability, and courage. The foundational insight to the networking strategy is to recognize,
deliberate, respect, and dialectically strategize to capture and articulate real solutions (Catmull &
Wallace, 2014). Working with colleagues that bring a decent dose of humility and courage to the
table must be rooted in properly aligned priorities that place the learner-stakeholder (i.e., TAY
learner) at the heart of the matter (Catmull & Wallace, 2014).
As stated, defining goals that are collaboratively built and protected is essential to remain
focused on the accountable task (Catmull & Wallace, 2014). Hargadon (2003) comments that
we share “strong ties” (p. 59) that impact the direction and value of networking goals. The result
is personal and professional proficiency, candidness, and productivity. Dyer et al. (2011)
comment that the formation of “personal networking groups” of “go-to folks” is effective in
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
195
testing solutions, promoting intradepartmental creativity among “confidants” (p. 125). Catmull
and Wallace (2014) note, “As more people are added to any group, there is an inexorable drift
toward inflexibility” (p. 191). Within these “small worlds,” a fragment [of] the larger networked
landscape (Hargadon, 2003, p. 58), it is feasible to install a policy via voluntary networking with
encyclical refinement, designating use to narrow distractions and laying a collegial, collaborative
structure.
An integrated networking of shared-learner strategies will be innately deductive due to
the refinement via practice and the “discovery” of stakeholder gaps (Haragadon, 2003, p. 65).
“Bridging small worlds” (Hargadon, 2003, p. 65), if built and maintained with fidelity, will
impact the learner stakeholder’s intrinsic adoption of chosen professional learning modules
(Ryan & Deci, 2000). Additionally, networking reinforces continuity and cohesion of pacing
calendars and shared teaching strategies while modeling a culture of adaptability and
professional value, impacting relevant stakeholders and the broader organizational
framework. Complementary, an important, effectual outcome of strategic, collaborative
networking is the positive impact on work culture or climate, fostering encouragement,
enjoyment, and long-term job satisfaction (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Proposed Solutions
Chapter Five synthesizes and evaluates assumed “Needs” reported in Chapter Four’s
findings relative to proposed solutions, implementations, and integrations of CTS’ DCS
stakeholder KMO “gaps.” Chapter Five addresses “Assumptions” validated, partially validated,
or not validated of KMO domains reported from Chapter Four’s triangulated document analysis,
focus group, and administrative data. Additionally, “Recommendations” are proposed to
highlight revealed KMO gaps to improve CTS’ current personal and professional learning
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
196
designs, creating awareness of correlative research generalized in local application and peer
benchmarking (Dowd, 2005; Marsh, 2012). Lastly, “Evaluations” are framed from Chapter
Four’s results and findings applied to the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) taxonomy
“blueprint” applied to KMO integration. As stated, The New World Kirkpatrick Model (NWKM)
clarifies “leading indicators,” extending continuity between applicable stakeholder and
organizational solutions and goals (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 15).
The Gap Analysis framework (i.e., Clark & Estes, 2008) was used to critique
“performance goals . . . [that] measure the gap[s] between current achievement and desire
performance goal levels” while anticipating the “cost-benefit of closing each gap” (Clark &
Estes 2008, p. 21). Document analysis, focus groups, and administrative data were used to
measure KMO factors pertaining to each Research Question (RQ). Chapter Four reports on
Knowledge factors framed by the RQ1 on CTS DCS stakeholder’s existing personal and
professional protocol (e.g., pedagogical strategies, cognitive science understanding, declarative,
procedural, and metacognitive awareness) to serve the needs of the TAY learner. RQ2 analyzed
CTS DCS stakeholder’s identification and integration of Motivational factors (e.g., socio-cultural
and socio-emotional contingencies, attributions, and goal orientations) affecting the needs of the
TAY learner. Lastly, RQ3’s findings were narrowed to review and evaluate CTS’ Organizational
personal and professional KMO resources and services affecting the DCS stakeholder, impacting
culture and skill transference to the TAY learner. See Appendix A-G.
After the CTS Gap Analysis findings are identified, analyzed, and proposed, an
integrated timeline of adoption and implementation will outline a multi-step, incremental
protocol. For example, CTS will need a program orientation that clarifies research purpose,
findings, and implications. The orientation is designed as a preface to articulate CTS’ objectives
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
197
to increase high school graduation rates generated from the research findings. During this phase,
CTS could begin to collect data on the localized CTS group home graduation rates from previous
years to guide resource and educational services for TAY presently living in CTS’ STRTP
homes. Creating a scripted protocol to monitor, correlate, and facilitate communication strategies
to translate high school graduation progress and deficiencies will aid in targeting CTS
achievement goals. Also, the CTS participating student stakeholder could be introduced to the
high school graduation mission and relevant requirements, standardized scoring, TAY and non-
foster graduation rates, post-secondary opportunities, TAY dropout factors (e.g., CSEC), and
post-graduate opportunities.
Accountability training on graduation rate monitoring will be important for the CTS DCS
stakeholder to correlate individual group home data with applicable CTS facilities and pertinent
professionals. A CTS graduation rate target should be crafted to clarify growth and reinforce
mission objectives (i.e., SMART).
In conjunction with the graduation-rate goal, a TAY graduation mission statement should
articulate grade-level standard proficiency and high school credit criteria required for
matriculation. In one year of resource intervention adoption, CTS should identify a holistic
percentage of confirmed post-secondary education or employment plans with comprehension and
validation of AB12 qualifications of all TAY seniors living at CTS’ STRTP residences (e.g.,
80% graduation rate and 60% post-secondary commitment).
Validated Influences
Chapter Four data reported on the study’s validated, partially validated, and/or not
validated KMO variables impeding CTS’ KMO barriers affecting the DCS stakeholder’s
personalized professional learning. Validated and partially validated barriers identified as KMO
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
198
influences are tabulated in Tables 12 and 13. KMO data was combined from document analysis,
focus groups, and administrative interviews with organizational questions designated between
focus group and administrative personnel.

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
199
Table 12. Summary of Influences Validated as Barriers
KMO Influences: Stakeholder Validated as Barrier
Knowledge (Declarative)
• Factual knowledge of cognitive science, types of knowledge, and learning barriers for TAY learner
• Factual terminology of pedagogical instructional strategies, designs, and complex content
• Factual and conceptual knowledge and application of pedagogical or statistical research measurements to measure abstract values
of motivation, content usability, interest, effective test taking strategies, self-regulation, self-confidence for TAY transfer
• Implications of TAY high school graduation standardized test scoring
Knowledge (Procedural)
• Personalized instruction with varied, differentiated approaches to promote performance and mastery goal values
• Read, annotate, synthesize, and produce an effective product based on specific measured standards for effective modeling
• Knowledge of the techniques or methodology to identify complex content
• Data collection methodology for analysis of performance and mastery achievement to refine and direct instructional practices
• Collaborative strategies to promote engagement and interest within the context of personal and professional learning
Knowledge (Metacognitive)
• Reflect on own discovery of new content meaning and learning strategies for TAY learner Stakeholders to evaluate strengths and
challenges within relationship for personalized schema related to all levels of cognitive taxonomy
• Awareness of goals, interest, judgments, stereotypes, etc. in relationship to individual learning deficiencies and strengths
• Self-regulate incremental approach to specific content and integrated schema
• Knowledge about the general strategies they use for learning— (lack of performance self-awareness)
• Monitor progress of improvement in itemized descriptors and specific intervention strategies to correct information or skill-based
achievement to avoid redundancy, learning attrition, and mental fatigue for effective TAY modeling
Motivation
• Choice selection criteria to address the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of the personal/professional learning
• Theoretical/conceptual knowledge introduced in the personal and professional instructional design: goal values
• Socio-cultural and emotional influences related to engagement and personalized schema integration
• Intervention content, procedures and policies related to employment and efficacy of TAY transfer
• Personalized schema and values
• Self-confident to strategically integrate personalized schema for achievement and TAY modeling transfer
• Identify cognitive, motivational, and pedagogical strategies for effective TAY intervention
• Comfortable or confident in collaborative instructional contexts (e.g., PLC) for effective personalized performance
Organization
• Instructional designs need to be supported with the fidelity of resources
• Policies and procedures need to be effectively communicated are accessible for integration and measured accountability
• Professional learning alignment with pre-existing historical mission goals/visions
• Cohesiveness of the campaign as it relates to stakeholder collaboration, cross-disciplinary content alignment, and accountability
• Tangible and intangible incentives for employment retention and cultural sustainment
• Continuity related to professional development and the disconnected stakeholder schedules/resources for consistent collaboration
and effective, timely feedback affecting the fluidity of the program
• Acknowledge and routinely integrate strategies that promote motivation, confidence, self-efficacy to validate the instruction
(K: DPM) Question 1: What experience or training do you have related to how a learner learns?
(i.e., cognitive science, types of knowledge, and learning barriers).
• Validated as a barrier – Yes
(K:DPM) Question 6: How often do you have the time and the ability to collaborate with other
colleagues concerning effective strategies to help the learner? (i.e., effective TAY modeling).
• Validated as a barrier – Yes
(K:DPM) Question 7: What personal and professional strategies are used to identify and reflect
on what learning strategies work or do not work for the learner? (i.e., effective TAY modeling,
evaluation of strengths and challenges).
• Validated as a barrier – Yes
(K:DPM) Question 8: What strategies are used to define and help encourage personal and
professional goals, interests, and motivations in your work environment affecting the learner?
(i.e., metacognitive schema for attributions and contingencies).
• Validated as a barrier – Yes
(K:DPM) Question 10: What training and strategies do you use to avoid frustration and
encourage the learner? (i.e., redundancy, learning attrition, and mental fatigue for effective TAY
modeling).
• Validated as a barrier – Yes
(M) Question 11: How much input or choice do you have in selecting the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of
how best to serve the educational needs of the learner?
• Validated as a barrier – Yes
(M) Question 14: What is the single most important factor that frustrates you or impedes you to
perform your job responsibilities?
• Validated as a barrier – Yes
(O) Admin Question 9: What is the greatest barrier impacting the DCS’s ability to serve the
needs of the learner?
• Validated as a barrier – Yes

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
200
Table 13. Summary of Influences Validated as Barriers in Part
KMO Influences: Stakeholder Validated as Barrier
Knowledge (Declarative)
• Factual knowledge of cognitive science, types of knowledge, and learning barriers for TAY learner
• Factual terminology of pedagogical instructional strategies, designs, and complex content
• Factual and conceptual knowledge and application of pedagogical or statistical research measurements to measure abstract values
of motivation, content usability, interest, effective test taking strategies, self-regulation, self-confidence for TAY transfer
• Implications of TAY high school graduation standardized test scoring
Knowledge (Procedural)
• Personalized instruction with varied, differentiated approaches to promote performance and mastery goal values
• Read, annotate, synthesize, and produce an effective product based on specific measured standards for effective modeling
• Knowledge of the techniques or methodology to identify complex content
• Data collection methodology for analysis of performance and mastery achievement to refine and direct instructional practices
• Collaborative strategies to promote engagement and interest within the context of personal and professional learning
Knowledge (Metacognitive)
• Reflect on own discovery of new content meaning and learning strategies for TAY learner Stakeholders to evaluate strengths and
challenges within relationship for personalized schema related to all levels of cognitive taxonomy
• Awareness of goals, interest, judgments, stereotypes, etc. in relationship to individual learning deficiencies and strengths
• Self-regulate incremental approach to specific content and integrated schema
• Knowledge about the general strategies they use for learning— (lack of performance self-awareness)
• Monitor progress of improvement in itemized descriptors and specific intervention strategies to correct information or skill-based
achievement to avoid redundancy, learning attrition, and mental fatigue for effective TAY modeling
Motivation
• Choice selection criteria to address the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of the personal/professional learning
• Theoretical/conceptual knowledge introduced in the personal and professional instructional design: goal values
• Socio-cultural and emotional influences related to engagement and personalized schema integration
• Intervention content, procedures and policies related to employment and efficacy of TAY transfer
• Personalized schema and values
• Self-confident to strategically integrate personalized schema for achievement and TAY modeling transfer
• Identify cognitive, motivational, and pedagogical strategies for effective TAY intervention
• Comfortable or confident in collaborative instructional contexts (e.g., PLC) for effective personalized performance
Organization
• Instructional designs need to be supported with the fidelity of resources
• Policies and procedures need to be effectively communicated are accessible for integration and measured accountability
• Professional learning alignment with pre-existing historical mission goals/visions
• Cohesiveness of the campaign as it relates to stakeholder collaboration, cross-disciplinary content alignment, and accountability
• Tangible and intangible incentives for employment retention and cultural sustainment
• Continuity related to professional development and the disconnected stakeholder schedules/resources for consistent collaboration
and effective, timely feedback affecting the fluidity of the program
• Acknowledge and routinely integrate strategies that promote motivation, confidence, self-efficacy to validate the instruction
(K: DPM) Question 2: As practitioners, what experience or training have you received in
practicing and using teaching strategies? (i.e., pedagogical instructional strategies, designs, and
formative/summative assessments).
• Validated as a barrier –
Partially
(K:DPM) Question 3: How often are you challenged with educational content that might limit
your ability to help guide and instruct the learner?
• Validated as a barrier –
Partially
(K:DPM) Question 4: What strategies or tools do you use to help monitor and keep the learner
accountable and encouraged for educational growth? (i.e., quantitative and qualitatively
measurements: data collection methodology).
• Validated as a barrier –
Partially
(K:DPM) Question 5: What strategies do you use to adjust your personalized instruction or
involvement with different types of personalities, learning styles, and/or educational goals? (i.e.,
differentiated approaches to promote performance and mastery goal values).
• Validated as a barrier –
Partially
(K:DPM) Question 9: What strategies do you use for self-regulation to accomplish your diverse
job requirements? (i.e., self-regulation, schema-development for TAY transfer).
• Validated as a barrier –
Partially
(M) Question 12: What is the single most important factor that motivates you to perform your job
responsibilities?
• Validated as a barrier –
Partially
(M) Question 13: What are the major social, cultural, and/or emotional barriers impacting the
learner (i.e., socio-cultural and emotional attributions and contingencies).
• Validated as a barrier –
Partially
(M) Question 15: How do you remain confident that your strategies are truly helping the learner?
(i.e., self-confident to strategically integrate personalized schema for achievement and TAY
modeling transfer).
• Validated as a barrier –
Partially
(O) Question 16: Are you given a clear educational goal and do you feel the necessary resources
are available? (i.e., CTS’ professional learning and instructional approach and fidelity of
resources).
• Validated as a barrier –
Partially
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
201
Table 13 continued. Summary of Influences Validated as Barriers in Part
KMO Influences: Stakeholder Validated as Barrier
(O) Question 17: Are your policies and procedures clear and relevant to the learner? • Validated as a barrier –
Partially
(O) Question 18: If applicable, has previous in-service training or professional development been
supportive of pre-existing mission goals/visions?
• Validated as a barrier –
Partially
(O) Question 19: Do you feel that your local goals are in alignment with the CTS’ larger
objectives? (i.e., cohesiveness in collaboration, cross-disciplinary content alignment, and
accountable TAY performance and mastery attainment).
• Validated as a barrier –
Partially
(O) Question 20: Are there personal and professional incentives offered by CTS? (i.e. tangible
and intangible incentivization for employment retention and cultural sustainment).
• Validated as a barrier –
Partially
(O) Question 21: How do you receive feedback from CTS related to job responsibilities and is it
effective to help the learner? (i.e., collaboration and effective, timely feedback affecting the
fluidity of the program).
• Validated as a barrier –
Partially
(O) Question 22: Are there strategies CTS uses to promote motivation, confidence, and self-
efficacy among the DCS (i.e., validate the instruction for intrinsic value of the adopted
campaign).
• Validated as a barrier –
Partially
(O) Admin Question 1: With the DCS under your supervision, how and how often do you give
performance feedback? What methodology and evidence are used to provide effective and
productive critique?
• Validated as a barrier –
Partially
(O) Admin Question 2: What tools or strategies do you use to provide clarity and promote value
of CTS’ organizational goals? Is there a direct correlation between clarity of goals and impact on
work culture or climate?
• Validated as a barrier –
Partially
(O) Admin Question 3: Does the DCS have any choice or input on instructional decisions
impacting the learner?
• Validated as a barrier –
Partially
(O) Admin Question 4: What incentives does CTS offer to promote learning and positively
impact the work environment?
• Validated as a barrier –
Partially
(O) Admin Question 5: Does the DCS employee have opportunities to clarify and reflect on job
performance related to CTS’ organizational objectives?
• Validated as a barrier –
Partially
(O) Admin Question 6: How do you help the DCS maintain motivation and promote learning
related to the learner?
• Validated as a barrier –
Partially
(O) Admin Question 7: If applicable, how often and when was the last time a formal professional
development was offered for the DCS employee?
• Validated as a barrier –
Partially
(O) Admin Question 8: What is the most motivating or exciting component of your job
description?
• Validated as a barrier –
Partially
(O)Admin Question 10: How do you clarify a clear educational goal and do you feel the
necessary resources are available to the DCS to service the learner? (i.e., CTS’ professional
learning and instructional approach and fidelity of resources).
• Validated as a barrier –
Partially
(O) Admin Question 11: Are your policies and procedures clear and relevant for the DCS
employee and relevant to the learner?
• Validated as a barrier –
Partially
(O) Admin Question 12: Are there strategies CTS uses to promote motivation, confidence, and
self-efficacy among the DCS employee? (i.e., validate the instruction for intrinsic value of the
adopted campaign).
• Validated as a barrier –
Partially

Organizational KMO Solutions
Implemented solutions will provide an adaptable framework to address motivational
concerns. For example, “high self-efficacy and competence beliefs” will be increased through
initial communication reinforcing the importance of the organizational mission directives to the
DCS stakeholder’s TAY services and resources (e.g., high school graduation rates and college
and career readiness skills) (Clark & Estes, 2008). Self-efficacy concerns will be mitigated
through strategic summative and formative methodology to promote stakeholder goal values to
chart the personal performance and mastery achievements for the stakeholder and the TAY
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
202
learner—defining areas of strengths and weaknesses (Clark & Estes, 2008). Organizational
promoted feedback will increase self-efficacy due to the clarity of directives and standards
modeled while positively influencing the DCS stakeholder’s and TAY learner’s self-efficacy
within the professional learning/intervention process (Clark & Estes, 2008). Stakeholder
modeling will increase the TAY learner’s self-efficacy by providing specific examples of
exemplary and, often, non-exemplary strategies (Clark & Estes, 2008). Building a team climate
will create confidence through team-building and collaborative strategies (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Anticipating the under and over-confidence of the DCS stakeholder and the TAY learner will be
counteracted by providing differentiated opportunities that extend learning within the range of
proximal growth (Dunn & Lantolf, 2008; Clark & Estes, 2008).
Proposed solutions will accommodate revision and differentiated instruction of the
professional learning opportunity. Specifically, providing surveys and incremental checks
concerning confidence of items or standards will reiterate organizational mission objectives
aligned to applicable TAY learner standards (Clark & Estes, 2008). Providing interaction with
colleagues/peers allows for shared communication of the value and intent of measured content
(Scott & Palincsar, 2006). Collegial/peer collaboration aids in identifying measured skills
concerning the DCS stakeholder’s and TAY learner’s identified and validated KMO variables
(Clark & Estes, 2008). CTS sponsored, collaborative team-building provides for community and
self-directed learning through conversation and exemplary products, a result of creating a team
culture with a shared campaign (Clark & Estes, 2008). Creating individual goals and providing a
system to allow the DCS stakeholder and TAY student to take “ownership” will encourage self-
monitoring and self-efficacy. Providing specific schema via annotation or study skills will
promote metacognitive analysis to be refined and modeled by the DCS stakeholder for transfer.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
203
Creating an organizational and local-site validation system will verbalize quality work
and facilitate growth while focusing on corrective feedback, placing emphasis on the strategy
versus the individual (Clark & Estes, 2008). Building a tangible system that can track past
successes of the TAY learner with present learning will produce visible progress and heighten
awareness of the collaborative team-effort (Clark & Estes, 2008). Connecting standards and
strategies to outside scenarios that utilize these skills in seemingly unrelated applications will
validate the content (Clark & Estes, 2008). Targeting under-confidence and providing
“supportive coaching” that includes organizational and stakeholder collaboration reinforce
mental effort built on appropriate schema (Clark & Estes, 2008). Breaking the content into
“smaller chunks” to initiate learning or reassessment will aid in application and help to reduce
cognitive overload (Clark & Estes, 2008). Lastly, over-confidence is “the most under-
recognized” variable influencing motivational factors (Clark & Estes, 2008). The DCS
stakeholder and TAY learner need to be guided in schema of metacognitive checks and
assessments directed on the strategy and not the learner’s mistakes (Clark & Estes, 2008) (see
Table 14).
Organizational Setting
Validation of the organizational setting can be measured conducting interviews with
relevant stakeholders pertinent to the professional learning design. Likert scale items can be
used in initial orientation and on-going professional learning implementation. Training and
surveys measuring the culture of the organization and local site personnel will provide full
integration of the diverse personnel and learner population impacting culture/climate issues.
Observations shared between vertical teaming (e.g., leadership and instructional designers) and
peer group collaboration (e.g., onsite personnel, direct-duty, and TAY specific job
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
204
responsibilities) allow for DCS stakeholder facilitation, observing progress and implementing
refinement. A result of collaborative assignments provides for the facilitation of constructive
feedback and appropriate adjustments. Lastly, by creating an intervention within
organizationally-driven cultural boundaries, integrated surveys can function as formative
quarterly assessments to analyze the health, growth, and differentiated needs of relevant
stakeholders.
Related to the inconsistencies and limitations within the organizational framework,
integration increases all stakeholders’ personal involvement, avoiding vague organizational goals
prone to change (Clark & Estes, 2008). Providing an organizational professional learning
“campaign” will increase motivation to reduce constant competition and encourage shared
teamwork reducing relegating critique (e.g., negative, critical, biased, and/or prejudicial
feedback) (Clark & Estes, 2008), allowing for a collective effort and/or team-confidence.
Stakeholder facilitation will provide feedback and modeling that will articulate the professional
learning design’s purpose and standards-based activities (e.g., SCT) (Allal & Ducrey, 2000).
Goal-orientation Theory (Yough & Anderman, 2010) offers the collaborative effort to
adopt and reinforce CTS’ organizational objectives, influencing motivation. Specific
organizational goal referencing can create a narrowed scope and sequence that counteracts the
DCS stakeholder’s and TAY learner’s cognitive demands (e.g., CLT) (Kirschner et al., 2010).
Additionally, Self-efficacy Theory fosters personal management for the DCS stakeholder and the
TAY learner, promoting personal growth and intrinsic value of the instructional content (Pajares,
2010). Organizational culture is directly influenced by the leadership (e.g., local site and
corporate) that implements professional learning mandates, impacting the educational framework
practiced in the home facilities. Bridging the gap between pedagogy and business-oriented tasks,
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
205
CTS administrators could encourage, support, and design professional learning/development
opportunities that lead to a solid, cohesive, progressive, and sustainable instructional design.
Administration can designate and fund the resources for local site stakeholders to participate in
collegial observations to provide cohesive collaboration of organizational and individual
objectives.
The cultural model can be measured through Likert-scale items that indicate the DCS
stakeholder’s and TAY learner’s orientation and involvement. These measures can be used as
professional-development opportunities to judge the efficacy of the professional learning design
to identify areas of weakness. Providing this feedback can lead to incremental growth or
adjustments. Observations can lead to collaboration that will streamline instruction and influence
of TAY services and resources that impact stakeholder teamwork and modeling. Also,
organizationally promoted and sponsored external professional development training/s can lead
to clarity and corroboration among all stakeholders at different STRTP facilities and CTS
management levels.
Solutions can focus on “curriculum coherence” to provide clarity influencing motivation
from all stakeholders (Rueda, 2011). This can be associated with Goal-orientation Theory that
can align organizational objectives and professional learning programs for continuity (Yough &
Anderman, 2010). Organizational cultural barriers can be mitigated, reducing pessimistic
feedback that influences the intended DCS stakeholder and TAY population. Reducing negative
elements will allow focus on the development of self-efficacy, an end-goal of the intervention
campaign (i.e., TAY sustainability) (Pajares, 2010). Laying the communicative foundation of
CTS’ objectives will permit measurements that identify attributions affecting the diversity of the
DCS stakeholder and TAY learner population as cultural influencers.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
206
Curriculum coherence will be a revisited focus with administrative support through
professional development (i.e., STRTP and observational collaboration). Vetting aligned
curriculum content and activities to broader organizational objectives will be reinforced in the
vertical teaming among DCS members that influence the professional learning program and
overall efficacy (Rueda, 2011). A heightened awareness of the social nature of learning can
address the cultural barriers and academic differentiation cited as attributions and influencing
self-efficacy and motivation (Rueda, 2011). Lastly, adjusting and revising organizational
structures tailored to specific professional learning goals through vertical team matrix facilitation
and observational opportunities between CTS personnel will positively influence the cultural
tone while accommodating overall organizational structure and processes (see Table 14).
Stratifying validated and partially validated barriers associated with questions measuring
exclusive and overlapping KMO domains correlates relevant stakeholder goals (i.e., Table 1)
with proposed solutions shaped by the research design’s RQ’s: Does CTS’ DCS have the
knowledge to serve the needs of the TAY learner? Does CTS’ DCS have the motivation and goal
values to serve the needs of the TAY learner? Does CTS’ organizational management support
the necessary resources and services to serve the needs of the TAY learner? (see Table 14).
Table 14 itemizes KMO factors that guided document analysis, focus groups, and administrative
interviews with validated questions, addressing each data component with proposed solutions.
Additionally, a brief, categorical narrative articulates prescribed KMO solutions.
Collaborative Solutions
Organizationally sponsored collaboration licenses the validity of a professional
“groupthink” with the indication of available and consistent resources (Mcleod, 2018). Building
a professional learning design and implementation with collaboration as a pillar for synthetic
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
207
stakeholder input guards against “cognitive illusions” or biases (Gimbel, 2016, 2:10).
Complementary to fostering the differentiated buy-in of the influencing stakeholder to affect
choice, effort, and persistence (Clark & Estes, 2008), CTS would benefit from utilizing in-house
personnel and external consultants to improve culture/climate concerns while guarding against
cognitive biases and social conformity influences (e.g., hyperbolic discounting, irrational
escalation, halo effect, positive outcome bias, overconfidence effect, Dunning-Kruger effect,
confirmation bias) (Gimbel, 2016).
Table 1. Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Vision
To be a community leader and exemplary model in promoting sustainable independence for
TAY foster care children residing in community-based live-in facilities seeking assistance in
living autonomous, productive, and prosperous lives.
Organizational Stakeholder Goal
In one year of TAY resource intervention adoption, CTS will chart, monitor, implement,
facilitate, and achieve 80% high school graduation for all senior TAY residents with 60%
verification of AB12 qualification and post-secondary education and/or employment goal
orientations.
DCS Stakeholder Goal
In one year of the TAY resource intervention adoption, the DCS employees will have been
trained, resourced, evaluated, and certified in related high school graduation supports (i.e.,
pedagogical, cognitive, and motivational factors) to promote and validate the organizational
goal mission.
TAY Learner Stakeholder Goal
In one year of the TAY resource intervention adoption, the CTS’ TAY learners will have been
exposed to effective DCS KMO modeling and will display academic and social improvement
impacting high school graduation qualification and college and career readiness for TAY
autonomy.

Collaboration is fundamental to organizational paradigms that rely on stakeholder
ownership and data-driven instructional designs (Bowgen & Sever, 2009; Burbank & Kauchak,
2003; Butler et al., 2004). Accessing CTS’ varied personnel at all levels with organizational
support is paramount to addressing TAY skill-transfer that anticipates the complex variables that
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
208
impede performance and mastery values (Senko et al., 2011). CTS’ instructional design and
integration should be held accountable to objective methodology and instrumentation (Gimbel,
2016). Involving varied perspectives and expertise saves organizational policies and regulations
to acquiesce to “intellectual gymnastics” or “confirmation bias”—a “backfill justification” to
save adopted protocol from “falsification” (Gimbel, 2016, 13:32-14:15).
As stated, research indicates that learner performance and mastery goal orientations are
directly related to the cultivation of organizational collaboration (Butler et al., 2004).
Anecdotally, the Professional Learning Community (PLC) is applicable in CTS’ educational
context. CTS’ sponsorship of collaborative time and resource allotment addresses collegial
feedback, critique of pedagogy, stakeholder integration, shared accountability (Butler et al.,
2004), performance and mastery achievement (Senko et al. 2011), and applied formal and
informal logic protocol against cognitive bias (Gimbel, 2016). Chapter Two quotes Lieberman et
al. (2016), “Opportunities for teachers to lead their own learning and that of their colleagues, can
benefit individual and collective professional learning . . .” (p. 7). CTS has the benefit of
available and partially untapped personnel resources to drive professional and personalized
learning design that effectually addresses validated and partially validated KMO variables. CTS’
collective personnel approach allows for lateral movement and unilateral application, remaining
faithful to CTS mission goals and addressing KMO factors related to extrinsic and intrinsic goal
indicators (Ryan & Deci, 2000). An organizationally subsidized, collective stakeholder agency
adheres to broader corporate commitments impacting the living and learning culture/climate. As
stated, CTS’ STRTP homes consist of a learner clientele (i.e., DCS and TAY) that would benefit
from a culture that advocates for collective analysis, learner-driven tasks, performance and
mastery application, and collaborative teams dedicated to personal and organizational aims.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
209
CTS integration of personal and professional reflection practices is integral to the
collaborative process (Clark & Estes, 2008). Research indicates that organizational focus on
deliberated and timely collaborative integration is more impactful to objective performance and
mastery values than isolated learning, misapplying provisional resources (Timperley & Alton-
Lee, 2008). CTS will benefit from the perspectives and expertise of the rich, internal resources
(e.g., personnel) to empirically inspire, promote, and design professional learning strategies with
positive cultural implications (Dufour, 2007), addressing relevant KMO factors for TAY
transfer.
Assessment Tools. Collaborative opportunities require objective filtering to ensure the
integrity and accountability of CTS’ dedicated professional learning, collective resources. For
example, as cited in Killion & Harrison (2017), a self-assessment tool by Clifton, Bryan, and
Harrison (2017) illustrates a scripted protocol to adapt professional learning designs aligned to
organizational mission objectives and targeted learning strategies. Using data-driven filters that
insulate and/or separate organizational mission goals from obligatory regulations and policies
disconnected from long-term professional learning outcomes encourages instructional protocol to
be centered on the targeted stakeholder (i.e., CTS DCS stakeholder) with determined value
impacting and achieving a hierarchy of results (e.g., organizational goals, personalized values,
and TAY learner transfer). CTS’ intent to audit viable instructional design and integration
focused on committed goals requires objective accountability to choose thoughtful and careful
critique of instructional strategies evaluating identified KMO factors (see Figure 6).

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
210
Table 14. Proposed Solutions for Validated Barriers and Partly Validated Barriers
Validated & Partially Validated KMO Barriers Proposed Solutions
Knowledge (Declarative)
• Factual knowledge of cognitive science, types of knowledge, and learning barriers for TAY learner
• Factual terminology of pedagogical instructional strategies, designs, and complex content
• Factual and conceptual knowledge and application of pedagogical or statistical research measurements to measure abstract values
of motivation, content usability, interest, effective test taking strategies, self-regulation, self-confidence for TAY transfer
• Implications of TAY high school graduation standardized test scoring
Knowledge (Procedural)
• Personalized instruction with varied, differentiated approaches to promote performance and mastery goal values
• Read, annotate, synthesize, and produce an effective product based on specific measured standards for effective modeling
• Knowledge of the techniques or methodology to identify complex content
• Data collection methodology for analysis of performance and mastery achievement to refine and direct instructional practices
• Collaborative strategies to promote engagement and interest within the context of personal and professional learning
Knowledge (Metacognitive)
• Reflect on own discovery of new content meaning and learning strategies for TAY learner Stakeholders to evaluate strengths and
challenges within relationship for personalized schema related to all levels of cognitive taxonomy
• Awareness of goals, interest, judgments, stereotypes, etc. in relationship to individual learning deficiencies and strengths
• Self-regulate incremental approach to specific content and integrated schema
• Knowledge about the general strategies they use for learning— (lack of performance self-awareness)
• Monitor progress of improvement in itemized descriptors and specific intervention strategies to correct information or skill-based
achievement to avoid redundancy, learning attrition, and mental fatigue for effective TAY modeling
Motivation
• Choice selection criteria to address the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of the personal/professional learning
• Theoretical/conceptual knowledge introduced in the personal and professional instructional design: goal values
• Socio-cultural and emotional influences related to engagement and personalized schema integration
• Intervention content, procedures and policies related to employment and efficacy of TAY transfer
• Personalized schema and values
• Self-confident to strategically integrate personalized schema for achievement and TAY modeling transfer
• Identify cognitive, motivational, and pedagogical strategies for effective TAY intervention
• Comfortable or confident in collaborative instructional contexts (e.g., PLC) for effective personalized performance
Organization
• Instructional designs need to be supported with the fidelity of resources
• Policies and procedures need to be effectively communicated are accessible for integration and measured accountability
• Professional learning alignment with pre-existing historical mission goals/visions
• Cohesiveness of the campaign as it relates to stakeholder collaboration, cross-disciplinary content alignment, and accountability
• Tangible and intangible incentives for employment retention and cultural sustainment
• Continuity related to professional development and the disconnected stakeholder schedules/resources for consistent collaboration
and effective, timely feedback affecting the fluidity of the program
• Acknowledge and routinely integrate strategies that promote motivation, confidence, self-efficacy to validate the instruction
(K: DPM) Question 1: What experience or training do you have related to
how a learner learns? (i.e., cognitive science, types of knowledge, and
learning barriers). Validated as a barrier - Yes
• Proposed Solution: Incorporate internal and
external data-driven research strategies focusing on
psychology, sociology, and educational cognition.
(K: DPM) Question 2: As practitioners, what experience or training have
you received in practicing and using teaching strategies? (i.e.,
pedagogical instructional strategies, designs, and formative/summative
assessments). Validated as a barrier – Partially
• Proposed Solution: Incorporate internal and
external data-driven pedagogical strategies
extending and applying question 1 parameters.
(K:DPM) Question 3: How often are you challenged with educational
content that might limit your ability to help guide and instruct the
learner? Validated as a barrier – Partially
• Proposed Solution: Personal and professional
learning content needs to be aligned to state-wide
accountability measures with stakeholder intent.
(K:DPM) Question 4: What strategies or tools do you use to help monitor
and keep the learner accountable and encouraged for educational growth?
(i.e., quantitative and qualitatively measurements: data collection
methodology). Validated as a barrier – Partially
• Proposed Solution: Instructional design requires
practice with varied measurement tools with
correlation to performance, mastery, attainment,
and utility values.
(K:DPM) Question 5: What strategies do you use to adjust your
personalized instruction or involvement with different types of
personalities, learning styles, and/or educational goals? (i.e.,
differentiated approaches to promote performance and mastery goal
values). Validated as a barrier – Partially
• Proposed Solution: Professional learning should
model and explicitly teach differentiated approaches
that utilize question 1 and 2 tenets applied to all
applicable KMO domains.
(K:DPM) Question 6: How often do you have the time and the ability to
collaborate with other colleagues concerning effective strategies to help
the learner? (i.e., effective TAY modeling). Validated as a barrier - Yes
• Proposed Solution: Organizational collaborative
support and resources should be intentionally
integrated into the professional learning with
consistency and continuity with defined goals.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
211
Table 14 continued. Proposed Solutions for Validated Barriers and Partly Validated Barriers
Validated & Partially Validated KMO Barriers Proposed Solutions
(K:DPM) Question 7: What personal and professional strategies are used
to identify and reflect on what learning strategies work or do not work for
the learner? (i.e., effective TAY modeling, evaluation of strengths and
challenges). Validated as a barrier - Yes
• Proposed Solution: Professional learning designs
explicitly include personal and collaborative
reflection in formal and informal development.
(K:DPM) Question 8: What strategies are used to define and help
encourage personal and professional goals, interests, and motivations in
your work environment affecting the learner? (i.e., metacognitive schema
for attributions and contingencies). Validated as a barrier - Yes
• Proposed Solution: Knowledge domain is to be
addressed under metacognitive schema to support
motivational variables and explicit cognitive science
measures.
(K:DPM) Question 9: What strategies do you use for self-regulation to
accomplish your diverse job requirements? (i.e., self-regulation, schema-
development for TAY transfer). Validated as a barrier – Partially
• Proposed Solution: Like question 8, Knowledge
domain is to be addressed under metacognitive
schema to self-regulatory skills affecting learning.
(K:DPM) Question 10: What training and strategies do you use to avoid
frustration and encourage the learner? (i.e., redundancy, learning
attrition, and mental fatigue for effective TAY modeling). Validated as a
barrier - Yes
• Proposed Solution: Knowledge domain addressed
through training and practice of cognitive load
theory and motivational contingencies affecting
learning.
(M) Question 11: How much input or choice do you have in selecting the
‘what’ and ‘how’ of how best to serve the educational needs of the
learner? Validated as a barrier - Yes
• Proposed Solution: Instructional design requires
more lateral collaboration among varied
stakeholder responsibilities to promote ownership,
differentiated choice, and culture/climate factors.
(M) Question 12: What is the single most important factor that motivates
you to perform your job responsibilities? Validated as a barrier –
Partially
• Proposed Solution: Collaborative strategies to
promote shared value and obstacles affecting the
stakeholder’s job efficacy.
(M) Question 13: What are the major social, cultural, and/or emotional
barriers impacting the learner (i.e., socio-cultural and emotional
attributions and contingencies). Validated as a barrier – Partially
• Proposed Solution: Explicit training needed to
identify, support, and promote abstract variables
related to question 1 and 2 affecting learning.
(M) Question 14: What is the single most important factor that frustrates
you or impedes you to perform your job responsibilities? Validated as a
barrier - Yes
• Proposed Solution: Like question 13, explicit
training needed to identify, support, and promote
abstract variables related to question 1 and 2
affecting learning through collaborative input.
(M) Question 15: How do you remain confident that your strategies are
truly helping the learner? (i.e., self-confident to strategically integrate
personalized schema for achievement and TAY modeling transfer).
Validated as a barrier – Partially
• Proposed Solution: Related to question 2 and 4,
methodology and instrumentation is to be practiced
and routinely used to objectively measure
performance and mastery goal orientations.
(O) Question 16: Are you given a clear educational goal and do you feel
the necessary resources are available? (i.e., CTS’ professional learning
and instructional approach and fidelity of resources). Validated as a
barrier – Partially
• Proposed Solution: Organizational communication
related to mission and professional learning
objectives are to be resourced and clarified to
promote holistic ownership.
(O) Question 17: Are your policies and procedures clear and relevant to
the learner? Validated as a barrier – Partially
• Proposed Solution: Applied to collaborative and
organizational professional learning objectives,
recurring and explicit justification is to be applied to
the TAY learner.
(O) Question 18: If applicable, has previous in-service training or
professional development been supportive of pre-existing mission
goals/visions? Validated as a barrier – Partially
• Proposed Solution: Related to question 17,
accountability and clear alignment of past, present,
and future professional learning is continually
readjusted to promote TAY promotion.
(O) Question 19: Do you feel that your local goals are in alignment with
the CTS’ larger objectives? (i.e., cohesiveness in collaboration, cross-
disciplinary content alignment, and accountable TAY performance and
mastery attainment). Validated as a barrier – Partially
• Proposed Solution: Unilateral support and
involvement in instructional design is required to
shape and align stakeholder values with
organizational objectives.
(O) Question 20: Are there personal and professional incentives offered
by CTS? (i.e. tangible and intangible incentivization for employment
retention and cultural sustainment). Validated as a barrier – Partially
• Proposed Solution: CTS should continue to account
for credible and pragmatic incentivization that
promotes performance and mastery values.
(O) Question 21: How do you receive feedback from CTS related to job
responsibilities and is it effective to help the learner? (i.e., collaboration
and effective, timely feedback affecting the fluidity of the program).
Validated as a barrier – Partially
• Proposed Solution: CTS should provide relevant and
viable feedback instrumentation that counteracts
internal reliability threats and is aligned to support
organizational and personal stakeholder values.
(O) Question 22: Are there strategies CTS uses to promote motivation,
confidence, and self-efficacy among the DCS (i.e., validate the
instruction for intrinsic value of the adopted campaign). Validated as a
barrier – Partially
• Proposed Solution: Explicit KMO training related to
metacognitive schema and motivational variable
accommodation should address self-efficacy,
resilience, and self-regulatory TAY skills.

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
212
Table 14 continued. Proposed Solutions for Validated Barriers and Partly Validated Barriers
Validated & Partially Validated KMO Barriers Proposed Solutions
(O) Admin Question 1: With the DCS under your supervision, how and
how often do you give performance feedback? What methodology and
evidence are used to provide effective and productive critique? Validated
as a barrier – Partially
• Proposed Solution: Organizationally sponsored and
frequent professional learning feedback
opportunities are needed to promote culture/climate
factors and personalized values.
(O) Admin Question 2: What tools or strategies do you use to provide
clarity and promote value of CTS’ organizational goals? Is there a direct
correlation between clarity of goals and impact on work culture or
climate? Validated as a barrier – Partially
• Proposed Solution: Organizational support is
required to research and teach distinct tools and
pedagogical strategies that are clearly aligned to
CTS’ organizational commitments and vision/s.
(O) Admin Question 3: Does the DCS have any choice or input on
instructional decisions impacting the learner? Validated as a barrier –
Partially
• Proposed Solution: Collaborative instructional
design is to be used to address differentiated
instruction, culture/climate value, and unilateral
ownership.
(O) Admin Question 4: What incentives does CTS offer to promote
learning and positively impact the work environment? Validated as a
barrier – Partially
• Proposed Solution: CTS incentivization should be
vetted and integrated into professional learning and
responsibilities to promote performance and mastery
goal values.
(O) Admin Question 5: Does the DCS employee have opportunities to
clarify and reflect on job performance related to CTS’ organizational
objectives? Validated as a barrier – Partially
• Proposed Solution: CTS is to use dedicated formal
and informal feedback and reflective practices that
reinforce organizational demands and values.
(O) Admin Question 6: How do you help the DCS maintain motivation
and promote learning related to the learner? Validated as a barrier –
Partially
• Proposed Solution: CTS provides performance and
mastery goal motivational techniques to
communicate organizational objectives and promote
stakeholder ownership.
(O) Admin Question 7: If applicable, how often and when was the last
time a formal professional development was offered for the DCS
employee? Validated as a barrier – Partially
• Proposed Solution: CTS is to deliberate the value
and the frequency of professional learning
opportunities.
(O) Admin Question 8: What is the most motivating or exciting
component of your job description? Validated as a barrier – Partially
• Proposed Solution: CTS leadership opportunities
should be afforded to inter-organizational
personnel. CTS management will afford personal
and professional access to relative job
responsibilities to communicate personal and
professional motivation value.
(O) Admin Question 9: What is the greatest barrier impacting the DCS’s
ability to serve the needs of the learner? Validated as a barrier - Yes
• Proposed Solution: CTS accountability should audit
past, present, and future barriers impacting the
culture/climate, stakeholder ownership, and TAY
learner transfer.
(O)Admin Question 10: How do you clarify a clear educational goal and
do you feel the necessary resources are available to the DCS to service
the learner? (i.e., CTS’ professional learning and instructional approach
and fidelity of resources). Validated as a barrier – Partially
• Proposed Solution: CTS’ objectives should
articulate clear and separate educational goals that
in harmony with the broader, non-educational
objectives. CTS is needed to resource the fidelity of
required resources.
(O) Admin Question 11: Are your policies and procedures clear and
relevant for the DCS employee and relevant to the learner? Validated as
a barrier – Partially
• Proposed Solution: Regulatory and obligatory
organizational demands should be aligned in
communication and practice to professional
learning objectives and TAY-specific learning.
(O) Admin Question 12: Are there strategies CTS uses to promote
motivation, confidence, and self-efficacy among the DCS employee?
(i.e., validate the instruction for intrinsic value of the adopted campaign).
Validated as a barrier – Partially
• Proposed Solution: CTS directives are required to
promote personal and professional learning and
accountability measures to promote stakeholder
metacognitive and motivational factors (e.g., self-
efficacy, confidence, self-regulation, and goal
orientations.

Collective, goal-driven identification and articulation of KMO barriers are paramount to a
collaborative process designed for collective expertise shaped by organizational accountability
and empirical evidence (Clark & Estes, 2008). Clifton et al. (2017) offer a stratified goal design
that solicits personalized learning values with the intent for collective application. For example,
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
213
Clifton et al., (2017) use a categorical numbering system (i.e., 1-low to 6-high) to build upon
individual to collaborative goals (i.e., foundation, application, and accomplished). One of many
assessment tools, Clifton et al., (2017) audit individual member’s goals, quantify and qualify
each response, and collaboratively work toward a corroborative goal design that practices
differentiated strategies while incorporating measures against internal reliability threats. The
adoption of a self-assessment tool with collaborative end-goals promotes continuity and cohesion
to objectives that require analysis, evaluation, and adjustment toward a collective goal shaped
and practiced by relevant stakeholders toward a categorical “accomplished” (Killion & Harrison,
2017).
As stated, collaborative tools are varied in design and approach, protecting the validity
and reliability of the instructional design (Marsh et al., 2006). CTS’ mission objectives and
regulatory and policy demands require data-driven methodology and instrumentation to be
rectified with the qualitative elements of the instructional design. The following are examples of
varied assessments to promote data-driven, collaborative instructional design decision (see
Appendix E: Inquiry Circle; Data Analysis protocol; Considering Evidence protocol; A Change
in Practice protocol; ATLAS Looking at Data protocol, and What? So what? Now what).
CTS’ commitment to data-driven instructional designs should invest in the use of
collaborative input that integrates differentiated learning modalities and goal orientations (Senko
et al., 2011), identifying, targeting, and measuring academic and social-skill achievements. An
organizational performance goal accountability will require user-friendly protocols with
integrated methodology and instrumentation to chart stakeholder and TAY learner growth,
quantifying performance values while affecting mastery orientations (Senko et al., 2011).

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
214
Figure 6. Self-assessment for Stakeholder Collaboration

Source: Self-assessment tool developed by Clifton, Bryan, and Harrison (2017).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
215
Organizational auditing of learner growth and achievement is foundational to differentiated
instruction designed to measure tangible growth while modifying content for “zones of proximal
development” (Dunn & Lantolf, 2008, p. 1). Instrumentation and methodology built to adapt and
provide visual growth while offering varied modal delivery and data-driven adjustments (e.g.,
cognitive attrition and proximal development) objectify learning while visualizing the learner’s
performance and mastery values (Dunn & Lantolf, 2008; Kirschner et al., 2006). The
organizational protocol should adopt accessible data reporting available to local administration
and relevant stakeholder. Progress reports should be consistent and regular with extensive
benchmark assessments, formative and summative, to meet academic standards while serving
organizational and professional learning objectives (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Database feedback capitalizes on the efficiency and objectivity of computation and serves
accountability factors while shaping professional learning through data-driven results (Mayer &
Alexander,2017). Creating and maintaining learner profiles is essential for addressing present
performance factors with long-term measurement quantified through statistical reporting,
shaping probability and inferential findings relative to the organization and the individual
stakeholder (McEwan & McEwan, 2003). “Crystalizing” learning through data-driven findings
that guide and inform differentiated needs while directing organizational objectives with
essential data is necessary for stakeholder ownership and the fidelity of learning transfer
(Medina, 2014).
Targeting performance growth through learner profiles is connected to intrinsic values
indicative of organizational incentivization (Dubnick, 2014). For example, personalizing learning
growth with proximal adjustments (Dunn & Lantolf, 2008) communicates taxonomical growth
that creates an encyclical, evaluative system designed for collaborative decision-making with
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
216
self-directed, tangible learning markers (e.g., standards charting, lexile placement, digital badges,
certification/credentialing, etc.). Incentivization that rewards the learner with standards-based
achievements supports targeting performance, attainment, and utility factors while impacting
intrinsic ownership.
Feedback and Reflection. As stated, feedback opportunity is foundational to unilateral
application and collaborative involvement (Rueda, 2011). Evaluative organizational
instrumentation and methodology will shape instructional design and impact culture/climate
ownership (Clark & Estes, 2008). CTS’ adoption of a collaborative feedback protocol
strengthens progressive and differentiated professional learning opportunities, an accountability
of data-driven instructional strategies based on KMO barriers (Clark & Estes, 2008). Holistic,
organizational feedback anticipates psychological variables and sociological facts (Gimbel,
2016), voicing a collective “echo chamber” (Chkhartishvili & Kozitsin, 2018, p. 1) rooted in
organizational ideology while objectively accommodating the learner’s differentiated needs. As
stated, comprehensive, collective feedback to guide CTS’ professional learning protocol must
anticipate data-driven analysis of the covariables affecting varied learning modalities:
psychological and sociological influences, organizational commitments and convictions,
culture/climate ownership, and varied stakeholder perspectives and expertise (Chkhartishvili &
Kozitsin, 2018; Clark & Estes, 2008; Gimbel, 2016, Senko et al., 2011).
As stated, goal-design requires scope and sequence clarity and practical application of
end-objectives (Rickabaugh, 2016). “Organizations need to be goal-driven, and currently, most
performance or work goal systems are not tied to an organization’s business goals” (Clark &
Estes, 2008, p. 21). Aligning organizational goals with stakeholder’s personal and professional
learning responsibilities requires administrative awareness of the theoretical and conceptual
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
217
objectives attainable to achieve and/or support a utilitarian, organizational direction and vision
(Clark & Estes 2008, p. 21). As stated, CTS’ generalized organizational goals require a funneling
of deliberated, collaborative alignment of refined “performance goals . . . [that] measure the
gap[s] between current achievement and desire performance goal levels,” anticipating the “cost-
benefit of closing each gap” (Clark & Estes 2008, p. 21).
Organizational goal adoption should consider self-assessing tools that individualize goal
values with the intent of a collective application to target performance and mastery-related
achievement. Targeting personal and professional goals with relevant and incremental
measurement is required to promote unity and continuity through formative and routine
summative benchmarks (Rueda, 2011) (see Figure 4).
Figure 7. Collective Personal and Professional Goal Identification

Source: IASEA Student Inquiry Toolkit (2017) Actual URL protected for anonymity
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
218
Quasi-administrative Leadership. “Modeling willingness to be a risk-taker reinforces
that all professionals engage in continuous learning to refine and expand their practice” (Killion
& Harrison, 2017, p. 54). CTS’ personnel offer an accessible and underdeveloped resource to
utilize collaborative strengths while building leadership within the pre-existing organizational
framework. As stated, this promotable incentivization affects the personal stakeholder while
promoting unilateral and holistic corroborative efforts (Dubnick, 2014). The attainability and
utility of developing and promoting onsite leadership are directly applicable for the TAY learner
to identify promotable attainment through performance and mastery achievement (Senko et al.,
2011).
Shaping instruction through personnel promotions and/or leadership development
practices co-teaching modeling at the core level. Quasi-administrative opportunities allow the
DCS stakeholder to receive immediate practice and feedback while the TAY learner engages in
the collective process (Bowgen & Sever, 2009). Quasi-administrative “coaching” is foundational
to personal and professional instructional designs that rely on a collaborative approach to shape
organizational protocol (Bowgen & Sever, 2009). Collegial instruction, if developed with
understanding and competence, impacts the collective working and learning environment, a
reciprocal symbiotic benefactor to beneficiary relationship (Killion & Harrison, 2017). As stated,
“What a person does on his own, without being stimulated by the thoughts and experiences of
others, is even in the best of cases rather paltry and monotonous” (Albert Einstein, as cited in
Dyer et al., 2011 p. 113).
Simplifying a hierarchy of organizational objectives, CTS’ should prioritize and
determinedly adhere to TAY the transfer rates of living and learning skills, improving high
school graduation and college and career readiness. The TAY learner that can emulate the
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
219
personal and professional interaction of onsite personnel practices CTS’ culminating goal/s
solely measured by TAY achievement (e.g., graduation rates). In the context of comprehensive
education, Killion and Harrison (2017) state, “Schools and school systems improve when
coaches share leadership within the school, focus professional learning on the school’s goals, and
increase collaboration among teachers” (p. 13). It is the intrinsic incline toward collective inquiry
that reinforces stakeholder ownership. An organizational system that relies upon the encyclical
feedback at all collaborative levels and varied lenses accesses the strength of quasi-
administrative evaluation shaped from the DCS’ and TAY learner’s instructional worldview.
Self-directed, intrinsically refined, metacognitively applied learning is a natural by-
product of the single-learner when the goal of the “collective whole” transcends the fragmented
efforts of the individual (Scott & Palinscar, 2010). CTS’ consideration to intelligently and
authentically interweave a mentality of the whole through intermediary, collegial co-instruction,
will affect organizational and differentiated stakeholder integration: personalizing professional
learning for staff, promoting self-directed professional learning, creating a learning-centred
professional dialogue, and building capacity for leadership” (Creasy & Paterson, 2005, p. 20). As
stated, strategic, frequent, and measured quasi-administrative opportunities require defined
parameters with a long-term vision: smart, precise decisions about the function and roles of
coaches early in the design process and then revisiting those decisions continuously throughout
implementation (Killion & Harrison, 2017, p. 22). Quasi-administrative roles can be diverse in
application; however, it is pertinent to draw clear individual responsibilities with integration into
the larger construct. This can be done through clear titles, job descriptions, prerequisite
credentials, organizational regulations, standards-based outcomes, and culminating goal values
with interconnectivity to personal and professional responsibilities.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
220
Additionally, leadership roles can be a promotable commodity shared, rotated, and
improved upon as the team members learn from the strengths and weaknesses gleaned from
collaborative interaction and collegial feedback (Bowgen & Sever, 2009). CTS, offering a
myriad of organizational ambitions and opportunities, can capitalize on the richness of the
different arms of business to strengthen lateral understanding of broader organizational
incentives (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004), enriching the integrity of STRTP instructional
learning and living resources. For example, CTS’ services and resources are varied and require
deployment and integration efficiency for optimal utility. Quasi-administrative opportunities can
rotate short-term duties relative to the specific resource to be used or professional learning
content requiring instruction and delivery (Bowgen & Sever, 2009). An organizational
delegation of responsibilities can be assigned to existing non-administrative personnel to lead
smaller managerial duties. This will foster a collaborative culture with job-related empathy,
impacting the cultural network while promoting leadership and professional learning objectives.
Shared interest and accountability can be measured in data-driven strategies that improve
adopted instrumentation, integrated methodology, and pertinent research findings.
Roles related to targeted TAY resources and services specific to larger organizational
objectives can use existing non-administrative personnel to “practice” integration and
management on a localized level. Also, the research indicates a DCS stakeholder deficiency in
practicing or being afforded opportunities to measure TAY achievement through data-driven
methodology and instrumentation. Quasi-administrative roles can be designated to research
present instructional practices specific to the micro-expertise or “micro-credentials” (e.g., data-
expert) to inform personal and professional instructional practices (Ifenthaler, Bellin-Mularski, &
Dana-Kristin, 2016, 1).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
221
Micro-expertise and Micro-credentialing. Micro-credentialing allows for the
stratification of stakeholder responsibilities related to KMO tenets of focus. Isolating identified
subcategories within larger KMO factors enables the organization to itemize “micro-credentials”
that lead to the support and achievement of larger KMO categorical issues (Ifenthaler et al.,
2016). Micro-credentialing functions as a liaison between learning and teaching requirements
addressed in compartmentalized instructional activities while reinforcing individual
competencies building toward a collective objective. Additionally, allowing for micro-expert
development within a limited scope, the learner can act as teacher-agent to bring the newly
targeted micro-competence to the shared, collaborative experience (Ifenthaler et al., 2016). CTS
can consider developing a reward system with “badges” (e.g., digital certification) that
supplement the participants’ accomplishments in learning portfolios or digital résumés
(Ifenthaler et al., 2016). CTS can develop clearly defined roles with micro and macro-objectives
and design an efficient collaborative rotation of available micro-credentials to share the content
and teacher/learner responsibilities. Micro-credential performance is data-driven in content and
delivery with targeted achievement and recognition value (e.g., extrinsic and intrinsic).
Apart from itemizing stackable (Ifenthaler et al., 2016) competencies collected for larger
goal orientations (Senko et al., 2011), the user is offered input into the selected micro-credential
to promote heuristic, discovery-based learning (Alferi et al., 2011). CTS’ integration of smaller
learning modules for collaborative integration allows for differentiated instruction, targeted
deficiencies, promotable recognition, and data-driven practicum applied to stratified
requirements (Ifenthaler et al., 2016).

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
222
The incentivization of micro-credentialing installs a performance-based mechanism that
concretely acknowledges the user’s achievements while reinforcing intrinsic motivation factors
measure in KMO domains (Dubnick, 2014). CTS’ integration of smaller collaborative activities
will require pragmatic, objective, and authentic processes that promote the learning environment
without minimizing the TAY services and resources it is designed to strengthen.
Itemizing expertise with personalized ownership from designated roles will provide
intrinsic purpose with extrinsic, lateral use affecting relevant stakeholders (Senko et al., 2011).
Cultivating a culture that routinely practices and shares in the responsibilities and celebrations of
data-driven achievements nurtures a learning culture that models efficiency, collaboration, and
promotion to be passed on to the TAY learner. CTS can target areas of organizational focus and
assign quasi-administrative personnel to itemized micro-expertise to earn micro-credentials
(Ifenthaler et al., 2016) (e.g., pedagogical experts, instructional design specialists, socio-cultural
facilitators, and TAY resource managers).
The TAY learner will be the beneficiary of the cultural exchange and networking power
among the very caretakers committed to TAY safety and promotion. Facilitating an authentic
infrastructure of unilateral mentors assigned and challenged by “micro-credentialing” purpose
(Ifenthaler et al., 2016), the TAY living and learning culture will be prepared to nurture and
promote an educational environment. Often, for the TAY learner, this collegial interaction and
shared interchange of expertise and display of personal and professional respect proctor as the
only surrogate example of promotable and sustainable life skills within a familial context.
Creating a learning environment with micro-credentialed experts relative to job descriptions acts
as localized mentors with laser-focused applications—supporting ownership, promoting
leadership, and fostering lifelong learning (Ifenthaler et al., 2016). Generating a culture of
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
223
collegial reciprocity and admiration is paramount to achieve “belongingness” (Stolle-McAllister,
2011), addressing overlapping KMO factors related to choice, effort, and persistence (Rueda,
2011). As stated, Stolle-McAllister (2011) comments, the value of identity and belongingness
resides in the building of “social and cultural capital” within the learning context (p. 12). CTS’
unilateral mission frames the required cultural unity that capitalizes on identity through building
social capital while anticipating the diversity of cultural and emotional barriers.
Implementation Solutions
Foundationally, identifying organizational resources and a cultural framework dictate
KMO variables related to this Gap analysis. Classifying and circumventing organizational
limitations and possible barriers affect DCS and TAY involvement. This is elemental if the CTS
administration, quasi-administration, and DCS stakeholders represent the modeling and extended
management of the professional learning integration for TAY transfer. Anticipating and
accommodating organizational variables influence the motivation, value, and self-efficacy of the
relative learner. Motivation variables are subsequent to organizational barriers because access to
the content and academic progress must accommodate for personal attributions affecting the
individual learner’s intrinsic and extrinsic elements (Senko et al., 2011). Anticipating
motivational aspects will heighten self-efficacy, constructive schema, and self-advocacy of the
curriculum content.
The integration of CTS’ proposed personal and professional learning solutions considers
the psychological and sociological variables (Gimbel, 2016) that complicate the quantification of
education addressed in KMO domains. CTS’ focus and accountability should be rooted in data-
driven, objective research that does not acquiesce to trendy or haphazard adoption, no matter the
jurisdiction or regulatory obligations (Pajares, 2010). Specifically, the advent of technology has
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
224
transformed learning environments, substituting veritable instruction with oversimplified,
nearsighted pedagogical objectives driven by varied electronic media. For example, Clark et al.
(2010) warn that empirical evidence of heuristic learning too reliant on unvetted media for
instruction confuses the new landscape of dynamic engagement over credible cognitive and
motivational development. Philip & Garcia (2013) highlight the irreplaceable value of the static
art and science of academic and moral instruction as a pertinent, integral complement to the
overly optimistic dynamic educational panacea of technology. The ubiquity of technology and
diverse instructional media requires “consistency of quality” influenced by data-driven
instructional designs present in “vital” and relevant conventional learning paradigms (Mares &
Pan 2013, p. 1). CTS’ instruction and impactful learning will rely on conventional relationships,
psychological accommodations, and the fidelity of instructional designs and expertise, ensuring
against a superfluous substitute of media and technology designed for content delivery.
The pervasiveness of technology in educational instruction generates a pertinence of
correlated research objectively critiquing the efficacy of cognitive development through game-
based learning. Abdul Jabbar & Felicia (2015) state that game-based learning does suggest
empirical engagement and related skill/s for the learner; however, viable comparisons of research
designs and transferability of contextual content for extended application remain inconclusive.
To design a framework that guides game-based learning research and complements instructional
design in diverse educational contexts, specific objectives (i.e., pillars) are to be measured within
prescribed scientific methodology for internal reliability and purposeful external validity (Hirsh-
Pasek, Zosh, Golinkoff, Gray, Robb, & Kaufman, 2015). Sana, Weston, & Cepeda (2013) report
that learners interfacing with computer laptops during the instructional design quantitatively
score lower than peers not multitasking between direct and technological instruction. Technology
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
225
for cognitive development, no matter the platform (e.g., apps, games, websites), is an inevitable
complement to instructional design; nevertheless, further research is required to efficiently
capitalize on the power of digital computation and engagement for cognitive development
(Hirsch et al., 2015). CTS will need assessment tools to incrementally measure participant and
organizational goal values to bridge the gap between objective and subjective direct and
technological professional learning strategies.
Organizational Integrated Resources. Organizationally, data-driven knowledge should
dictate how CTS’ personnel are integrated into collaborative and leadership-developing
opportunities. Micro-credentialing through localized expert to novice transfer and expert to peer
constructive feedback requires detailed job descriptions with defined goals and progressive plans
for professional integration (Ifenthaler et al., 2016; Schunn & Nelson, 2006). An essential part of
the integration and deployment of micro-credentialing opportunities will require recording,
evaluating, and accounting for leadership practice and, if applicable, directly measuring TAY
learner performance. As Furrer and Skinner (2003) state, the fidelity of resources and plan of
implementation are diminished without initial, proactive engagement that is “. . . goal-oriented,
flexible, constructive, persistent, and focused . . . with the social interactions and physical
environments” (p. 149) related to behavioral and affective domains (Rueda, 2011). Killion
(2009) emphasizes defined description and goals specific to an educational context stating, “If
any provider of the coaching program—the school, district or the coach—is unclear about the
intended results of coaching, then coaches will struggle to keep a laser-like focus on doing what
matters” (p.22). If the deployment of collaborative opportunities or micro-expertise development
is organizationally installed, it is pertinent to create extra facilitation to communicate the
arrangement and consequential value of the design development. Organizational professional
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
226
learning design requires quantifying a plan for integration among the percentage of available
stakeholders, job-related limitations, complexity of the micro-credential requirements, and
stratagem to cycle through varied collaborative and leadership assignments.
Expert to Novice Ratio. Either collaborative or micro-expert opportunities should
consider smaller units of practice to protect the fidelity of a personalized learning experience
while minimizing KMO learning factors (Killion & Harrison, 2017). Cognitive attrition affecting
expert to novice transfer is applicable to the number of learners engaged in content or skill
transfer (Schunn & Nelson, 2006). As stated, clarity and value of the expertise are dependent on
the proficiency of collaboration and the efficacy of expert direction in Cognitive Task Analysis
(CTA) (Clark et al., 2008). Reducing the active stakeholders, expert and novice, and minimizing
affecting KMO variables, automaticity of the practicing skill is enhanced while promoting
measurable performance and mastery aims (Clark, 2012; Senko et al., 2011).
Collaborative Coaching. CTS’ targeting of micro-credentialed experts with small-group,
teacher-learner ratios will employ “pod” learning modules with designed rotation for application
and evaluative improvement. For example, Sweeney (2011) states, “By focusing coaching on
specific goals for student learning, rather than on changing or fixing teachers, a coach can
navigate directly towards a measurable impact and increase student achievement.” (p. 23).
Learning pods will streamline the targeted learning-badge (Ifenthaler et al., 2016) while fostering
collegiality with minimized cognitive load requirements (e.g., CLT; CTA) (Schunn & Nelson,
2006). Targeting pragmatic teaching duties for the micro-credentialed expert creates a
lightweight structure for quick dissemination of content, pragmatic job-utility, and strategic
integration (Killion & Harrison, 2017). Cycling and exchanging teacher and learner
responsibilities with limited scope and sequence of targeted performance will help to itemize
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
227
micro-credential expertise with opportunity for frequent practice and refinement (Killion &
Harrison, 2017). CTS can itemize varied levels of collaborative roles and/or distinct job
descriptions with clear titles, job boundaries, and summative measurements. For example,
Killion and Harrison (2017) discuss a three-tiered, unilateral collaboration with encyclical
responsibilities: Facilitators that oversee the integration and promote learner-centered practice
and engagement; Members that represent the targeted learning audience with learner-centered
responsibilities to participate in the facilitator’s instructional design; and Expert members that
represent the micro-credentialed preparation required to disseminate information, design
practice, and install and activate integral performance measurements reinforced by the facilitator
and practiced by the members. To reduce reliability threats, all roles should practice consistent
and routine instrumentation and methodology applied to varied collaborative or quasi-
administrative teacher-learner roles. The end result will lend to a promotable and intrinsic culture
of learning for TAY modeling and transfer.
CTS’ collaborative and/or micro-expert opportunities will require clear, relevant, and
data-driven rubrics that promote learning through cognitive load reduction, sequential and
interconnected standards, and tangible, concrete measurements with promotable applications
(Sweeney, 2011). Instrumentation and methodology should not be a deterrent in streamlining
collaborative or micro-expert teaching. Measurements and integration protocol will require
frequent practice and extended application to KMO domains designed to be measured for growth
and progress. CTS’ accepted rubrics and accountability measures should align to clear goals
(e.g., organizational and content-related) to encourage interest and value while reducing
frustration and confusion. As stated, the lack of “a defining goal” reinforced with a hasty
timeline and lack of accessible ancillary resources can hinder proficient learning. As stated,
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
228
Catmull and Wallace (2014) comment, “There is nothing quite like ignorance combined with a
driving need to succeed to force rapid learning” (p. 45). Additionally, Robinson (2004) states a
teleological argument to define reason and long-term value of the specific effort: To know
something is essentially to know the cause of it . . . (p. 53). It will be paramount to protect the
integrity of goal-defining objectives that align to mission directives while promoting the
personnel resources that represent active engagement with the targeted TAY learner. CTS’
collaborative and micro-expert engagement is quintessential to “anthropological investigation”
that temporarily trades the teacher and learner roles (Dyer et al., 2011); however, learning
protocol, measurements, and defined end-goals are necessary to heighten awareness of KMO
factors occurring in real-time within the activity (Catmull & Wallace, 2014).
Micro-credential Integration. CTS’ existing professional learning framework should
specify targeted stakeholder expectations and chart performances with tangible “badges”
(Deklotz, 2016). CTS should consider maximizing access and delivery of micro-credentialing
modules to maximize choice, effort, and persistence (Rueda, 2011). The intent of segmented
competencies is to minimize cognitive load and maximize the CTA transfer for automaticity
and/or competence (Kirschner et al., 2006; Schunn & Nelson, 2006). CTS’ implementation will
require a minimal, terse protocol that is reinforced by actively participating in the micro-
credentialing process. CTS would benefit from a professional learning design that uses
leadership-building opportunities for peer-related feedback, providing a platform to
communicate value and proficiency from each micro-credential session (Deklotz, 2016). Lastly,
CTS should practice consistent and specific micro-credential data analysis and evaluation.
Accountability and transparency are integral to the authenticity of the micro-credentialing
process (Deklotz, 2016). To achieve maximum performance and mastery goal objectives
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
229
applicable to KMO assumptions, CTS’ preparation to streamline the efficiency and maximize the
utility of micro-credentialing will be fundamental (Senko et al., 2011) (e.g., critical needs
assessments, competency measurements, assessment methodology, resource inventory, and
collaborative stratagem) (see Appendix K).
Collegiality. CTS’ STRTP facilities rely on the inherent relationships existing with
varied partnerships affecting the efficacy of TAY services and resources (e.g., guild funding,
pedagogical expertise, onsite caretakers, and varied levels of STRTP administration).
Authentically building relationships with the fidelity of resources is paramount to collaborative
or co-teaching assignments (Uzun, 2012). CTS functions as a microcosm practicing an agreed-
upon social contract. One member’s actions affect the efficacy of the larger whole. Whether it be
defined partnerships (e.g., guild funding, pedagogical expertise, onsite caretakers, and varied
levels of STRTP administration), external consultation, or internal personnel that reinforce or
substitute as DCS stakeholder, the synergetic reliance on the nuances of job description must be
decompartmentalized in practice for holistic utility and evaluation (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Onsite caretakers require relief and support at every level of stakeholder facilitation. For
example, daily CTS personnel are reinforced by the energy and expertise of external coaches
(e.g., guild members) that target specific life-skills (e.g., sewing, cooking, washing clothes,
etiquette lessons, art and music instruction) that function as mastery goal activities modeling
sociological and psychological KMO engagement.
TAY services and resources require CTS to arrange and utilize the diversity of available
assets, emphasizing cohesion and continuity of TAY targeted objectives. Learning is
interconnected to personalized instruction that relies on the activation of a collective
constituency impacting progress of the individual and community (Dyer et al., 2011). CTS’
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
230
STRTP is a complex community that requires diligent and sincere effort from every team-
stakeholder required to nurture a fabricated home valuing promotable social and academic TAY
achievement.
Collaborative Contracts. CTS should act as the catalyst and resource provider that
dictates the teaching and learning landscape with defined, intermittent end-goals. CTS ought to
create a protocol that qualifies roles, teaching objectives, learning benchmarks, and contractual
language related to each assignment. CTS can define clear job descriptions that promote
reciprocity of each role affecting the proficiency of the activity (i.e., collaborative, leadership
building, and micro-credentialing). Organizational protocol clarification addresses varied
delivery and access factors of pertinent TAY services and resources: teaching resources and
delivery, learning schema, prioritization of learning objectives, and role-reversal transition
protocol. CTS should clarify available resources and strategic use of related services,
implementation strategies, instrumentation for teaching and learning measurements, and
guidance for analysis of data-driven methodology.
CTS’ effort to refine and streamline instructional protocol reinforces the clarity of
expectations, protecting instrument reliability and strengthening stakeholder confidence in the
organizational paradigm (McEwan & McEwan, 2003). Delineating between role-specific
expectations validates the process and promotes performance and mastery level objectives
(Senko et al., 2011). CTS should address process and protocol that reduces confusion and
promotes unity in select activities.
Also, CTS should be consistent in measuring objectives with application and evaluation.
This includes the practice of user-friendly and appropriate data collection instrumentation and
methodology that is encyclical and utilized among a variety of participant activities. Lastly, CTS
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
231
should be transparent with organizational end-objectives, pacing calendars related to
achievement, and instructional design adaptation as to guide collaborative feedback yielded from
leadership-promoting occasions.
CTS should also reinforce the targeted stakeholder directly engaged at the level most
visible and impactful for TAY modeling. CTS’ partnerships activate varied DCS stakeholders
with direct access to the TAY learner. CTS should make a concerted effort to define learning
outcomes and pedagogical expectations among this teacher-stakeholder role. CTS can provide a
demarcation of job-related duties with anticipatory sets that visualize the teaching and learning
context prior to the installation of the collaborative or micro-expertise activity. CTS can rely on
reinforcing activities through facilitator supports that adjust to factors presented in content
delivery and activity measurements. CTS can emphasize end-goal measurements, collaborative
expectations, role-specific prerequisites, and stakeholder job descriptions.
Instrumentation and Methodology. CTS’ professional learning paradigm hinges on
accountability measures to design living and learning instruction from data-driven strategies. In
a collaborative or micro-credentialing process, each stakeholder (e.g., coaching and learning
roles) will benefit from individual reflective practices that can be funneled into the larger
professional design to drive instruction (Killion & Harrision, 2017). As stated, CTS’
organizational accountability can be addressed through Likert scales measuring utility, intrinsic,
extrinsic, or attainment goals: importance, value, use, and interest (Murdock & Anderman,
2006). Individual reflection allows for the personal articulation of differentiated learning needs
from the actual learner’s past and present instructional experience. To improve the broader
scope of organizational professional learning, the individual will benefit from opportunities to
consider learning in a retrospective mirror, providing differentiated analysis that serves the
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
232
learner and the learning paradigm. As stated, “Connections between performance goals and
people’s interests . . . represent an opportunity to do something that interests” (Clark & Estes,
2008, p. 95).
Providing built-in opportunities for relevant, concrete feedback (Rueda, 2011) will guide
CTS’ professional learning design to objectively address KMO factors influencing TAY
graduation and college-readiness. CTS’ integration should use varied data measurements,
defined individual and organizational objectives with targeted measurement points (e.g.,
quarterly), collective organizational indicators for performance markers, collaborative action
plans that align to pacing calendars with clear formative and summative data points, peer
benchmark indicators for objective correlation, and data collection instrumentation and
methodology resourced and practiced by CTS’ joint partnerships (e.g., guild funding,
pedagogical expertise, onsite caretakers, and varied levels of STRTP administration).
Data-driven Pedagogy. McEwan & McEwan (2003) emphasize that data-driven
pedagogy is foundational to identify, evaluate, and address KMO related factors: Research is the
most powerful instrument to improve student achievement—if only we would try it in a serious
and sustained manner” (p. 1). CTS’ commitment to objective professional learning that earnestly
assimilates KMO factors into a collective, differentiated design requires consistency and access
of sustainable and proficient methodology. CTS’ accountability to drive instructional protocol
requires concrete analysis of data results and findings to ensure the fidelity of change and
progress with whole-group (i.e., relevant constituents) consultation and interaction. To achieve
TAY performance and mastery goals, CTS will need to make data as the neutral justification to
make informed decisions with delineation between concrete and abstract KMO variables
affecting the learning framework.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
233
Goal Targeting. As stated, the lack of “a defining goal” reinforced with a hasty timeline
and lack of accessible ancillary resources can hinder proficient learning (Catmull & Wallace,
2014, p. 45). CTS’ accountability should consider performance and mastery-based goals
applicable to the length or time needed to attain and integrate short and/or long-term objectives
pertinent to stakeholder groups (e.g., DCS learner or TAY learner). CTS’ organizational
commitments should drive the progress and alignment of short-term pedagogical goals toward
prioritized targets (i.e., TAY graduation rates; college and career readiness). A conscious effort
to build personal and professional learning that supports and leads to long-term aims will require
planning that reinforces continuity and harmonic cohesiveness toward traditional and progressive
organizational aspirations. Creating frequent data-driven benchmarks, formative and summative,
with evaluative methodology to drive instruction, CTS can identify, reuse, and revise tangible
learning strategies for palpable stakeholder achievements. CTS objectives, short or long-term,
should serve as opportunity to regroup, reflect, and adapt to data indicators. As stated, this allows
for individual and collective self-regulation for assessment, application, and purposeful
correlation, integrating metacognitive self-regulation to identify tools and strategies that account
for incremental, “proximal development” (Dunn & Lantolf, 2008, p. 1). CTS’ approach to
learning markers should be rooted in a collaborative evaluation that tests realistic, attainable, and
utilitarian practices (Senko et al., 2011; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Rueda, 2011) (see Appendix J:
Standards for Professional Learning).
CTS will use these practices to adjust organizational training or engagement to tailor
specific action plans with targeted strategies. Vetted, data-driven approaches are essential to
justify an instructional design reliant on measured results and findings. Varied strategies can be
used to target data points with focused application (e.g., quota, piece-rate, tournament, and flat-
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
234
rate schemes) (Clark & Estes, 2008). CTS’ protocol should address KMO domain factors
through feedback-related strategies. Attainment and utility value data can serve to instruct
professional learning strategies based on probability and inference, sequential actions,
proficiency of content delivery, targeted goal determiners, instructional protocol changes, and
evaluative performance and mastery growth.
Culture/Climate Efficacy. Findings suggest CTS should highlight positive cultural
uniformity through collaborative practices necessitated by the KMO demands of the STRTP
context. All collaborative CTS stakeholders (e.g., guild funding, pedagogical expertise, onsite
caretakers, and varied levels of STRTP administration) modeling TAY living and learning
instruction shape the educational culture that is proportionately affected by the safety and
authenticity of the STRTP. CTS must be highly cognizant to advertise and promote goal-driven
uniformity among relevant personnel, communicating the legitimacy of and commitments to
STRTP resources and services. This shared collegiality rooted in ethical concern is impactful to
building a supportive, friendly, and conducive STRTP residency where relationships and
personal value translate to the impressionable TAY learner (Ambrose et al., 2010).
Reciprocal recognition, support, and respect between CTS’ collective representation of
stakeholder and TAY learner influence (e.g., guild funding, pedagogical expertise, onsite
caretakers, and varied levels of STRTP administration) foster a professional working
environment that spends the required dedicated energy and resources on the refinement of
practices from varied job description perspectives. CTS’ effort to collect, chart, and improve
professional learning impacting the TAY learner necessitates a whole team commitment with
intrinsic ownership and collaborative aid, targeting short and long-term goals (Ambrose et al.,
2010). CTS’ determination to foster personal and professional relationships—complemented
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
235
with the resources to create reciprocal exchange between varied job-related duties (Clark &
Estes, 2008)—maintains the core value of the intimacy indicative of the STRTP living and
learning experience. Catering and resourcing the health and honesty of the STRTP “homelife,”
CTS can hope to distribute differentiated requests and expertise among all “family” members.
Creating friendly dialogue, collegial dialectics, relational guidance, and learner-centered
metacognitive schema, CTS will target concrete and abstract KMO components exposed by
investigative critique and collaborative interactions (Ambrose et al., 2010).
Reciprocal Collaboration. CTS’ collaborative and/or micro-credentialing stratagem
will require clear and separate job-performance obligations to maximize the transition between
teacher and learner (Ifenthaler et al., 2016). CTS’ support will include role-playing to achieve
maximum value from the collaborative activity. Ifenthaler et al. (2016) address that use of a
collaborative process hoping to gain valued results relies on the efficacy of the design and clarity
of the role-playing duties from each participant. CTS should consider reinforcing the
interdependent relationships inherent within the design to achieve learner and organizational
expectations. As stated, CTS should consider intermittent practice with professional assessment
tools that target, define, and project stakeholder performance within personal or organizational
professional learning strategies (see Appendix J: Standards for Professional Learning).
Evaluation Plan
As stated, utilizing The Kirkpatrick Evaluative Model, a four-level or tiered approach for
evaluating the efficacy of KMO domains in this Gap Analysis, itemizes and prioritizes placement
of responses and actions from all stakeholders (Clark & Estes, 2008). Level 1 measures the
stakeholders’ reactions to the context. This labels the specific measurements of what is to be
learned and the proficiency of the content. It is formative feedback that aligns with
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
236
metacognitive practices influencing ownership and value-oriented variables. This level practices
self-regulatory skills that manifest into individualized schema. Level 1’s measurements of
“reaction” or preference to the professional development function as a stakeholder referendum
that polls content “satisfaction,” “relevance,” and “engagement” with the encyclical design to
“monitor and adjust” at each level (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 21-22).
Level 2 addresses measurements of learning and performance. Level 2 is qualitative and
quantitative data used to identify influencing variables while encouraging the learner's
confidence and motivation. Level 2’s measurements of “learning” or “the degree to which
participants acquire the intended knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence and commitment based
on their participation in the training,” is a qualitative stakeholder self-reporting that integrates
relevant knowledge and motivational factors (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p.11).
Level 3 itemizes the transfer of behavior. The practice of self-efficacy with personally
derived motivation and continual metacognitive evaluation is the centered-goal of facilitated
learning. Level 3 can be measured through formative and summative assessments; however,
Level 3 deals primarily with the learner stakeholder taking personal ownership and managing
self-learning. Level 3 is designed as a measure of attainment and utility or “the degree to which
participants apply what they learned during training when they are back on the job” (Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2016, p.11). This level targets components of incentivization (Dubnick, 2014):
reinforcement, encouragement, and recognition (i.e., tangible and intangible rewards)
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Level 4 overlaps the transferability to proven summative achievement of the content
applied to the intervention goal and personal goal-orientation. Level 4 measures the practicality
and effectiveness of the measured skills in differing contexts. This can be measured in retrospect
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
237
to overall improvement and motivational change through refined meta-cognitive strategies that
lead to lifelong learning. Level 4 is reserved as a quantitative measure of “the degree to which
targeted outcomes occur as a result of the training and the support and accountability package”
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p.11).
As indicated in Chapter Three’s methodology, the New World Kirkpatrick Model
(NWKM) complements the initial four-level design with an inductive approach, articulating
refined organizational objectives that clarify “leading indicators” that reinforce continuity
between organizational solutions and goals (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 15). The
NWKM level 4 revision employs “STRTP observations” and varied methodology designed to
distinguish “critical behaviors” affecting organizational and individual goal values (Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2016, p.11) (see Table 3 and Figure 5: NWKM).
Table 3. Kirkpatrick Four Levels of Evaluation

Source: Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
238
Figure 5. The New World Kirkpatrick Model

Source: Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.

Level 4: Results, Leading Indicators, and Desired Outcomes. Level 4 indicators share
a reciprocal relationship with Level 3 monitoring and evaluations. To measure professional
learning efficiency and achievement, Level 4 and Level 3 observations and findings correlate in
an encyclical, collaborative paradigm that filters KMO factors between non-organizational
findings through a managerial lens, driving instruction, policy, and regulation (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). The reciprocal evaluative correlation between Level 3 and 4 promote
professional learning modules that address differentiated techniques, proximal development,
socio-cultural and emotional attributions, and data-driven goal-values (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Evaluative results, indicators, and outcomes are categorically structured by
outcome, metrics, and method/s to chart target present and anticipated indicators (see Table 15).
Level 3: Behaviors (e.g., on-the-job learning: encourage, reward, monitor, and
reinforce). The successful implementation and integration of CTS’ collaborative modules and/or
micro-expert leadership activities will require refined and definitive rubrics, protocol, and
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
239
objectives. Level 3 is used to monitor, reinforce, reward, and encourage stakeholders to achieve
temporal goals with long-term value (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). CTS should consider
micro-prototypes to refine and protect the fidelity of the professional learning investments
specific to the above collaborative efforts. CTS should also consider benchmark evaluations that
audit alignment of micro-objectives with larger organizational commitments. Level 3 also targets
integral instrumentation for data-driven instructional practices based on findings and results
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). It is an aspect of accountability to STRTP regulations and
policies that dictate the validity of CTS’ licensing requirements (CDSS: STRTP, 2020). Level
3’s data integrates KMO factors impacting intrinsic values with positive reinforcement through
performance-driven recognition (i.e., Rewards and Encouragement) (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). Level 3 and 4 outcomes, metrics, methods, and timings are disaggregated in Table 16.
Required Drivers. The New World Kirkpatrick model integrates what is defined as
“Required Drivers” that reinforce, monitor, encourage, and reward progress, completion,
competence, and achievement specific to identified “critical behaviors” (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Required Drivers act as markers that target initial execution and benchmark
analysis deployed at varied times relative to modular training (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Sequence and protocol are built into the matrix to adjust for attainment and utility factors marked
by Required Driver checkpoints, auditing critical behaviors affecting validated KMO barriers
KMO factors pertaining to “reinforcing, “encouraging,” and “rewarding” categories
progressively monitor for performance and mastery goal orientations (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). KMO domains are addressed in the micro-credentialing and various collaborative
processes that reinforce personal and professional instruction with built-in evaluative markers
and action-plan timelines (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) (see Table 17).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
240
Table 15. Expected Outcomes, Metrics and Methods
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
● CTS data indication related to
stakeholder’s choice, persistence,
and effort to professional learning
design.
● Nominal ratings for instructional
clarity and value.
● Ordinal ratings for ranking and
prioritization.
● DCS turnover statistics.

● Likert Scales or targeted survey
items relative to professional
content and delivery.
● Personnel satisfaction and
retention from organizational
data resources (e.g., Human
Resources).
● Micro-credentialing markers and
recognition system deployed at
different organizational levels with
employee portfolio development
with badge achievements.

● Integrated matrix of possible
micro-credentialing with system
to track and reward personnel
integration and competence.
● Personnel collaborative data and
reflective/feedback auditing.
● Individual and collective
feedback indicators for
cooperative and differentiated
instructional design
modifications.
● Portfolio development.
● Reflection/feedback auditing:
individual and collective.
● Micro-credentialing competence.
● Micro-badges tabulated.

● CTS individual and collective
feedback to drive instructional
design with targeted KMO
assumed influences.

● Qualitative cataloging of personal
and collective input.
● Correlation to data-driven
instructional strategies.
● Planned integration and auditing
of differentiated suggestions
collected in binary tabulations via
categorical KMO influences.
● Qualitative and quantitative
instrumentation derived from
nominal data
● Qualitative and quantitative
instrumentation derived from
ordinal data.
● Matrix visualization organizing
individual or collective feedback
● CTS resourcing to target,
integrate, showcase, and evaluate
personnel and collective
indicators via the instructional
data’s findings and results.

● Collective accounting of
personnel progress and
promotable categories related to
singular and collective objectives.
● Assessment measures that align
personnel choice to KMO
instructional options.
● Matrix to pace personnel
competencies and chart progress
related to micro or macro targets.
● Assessment tools to organize and
facilitate collaborative or
individual feedback.
● Matrix to organize and categorize
input from data instrumentation:
surveys, focus groups, micro-
credentialing.
● Ongoing organizational protocol
for incremental and integrated
instructional strategies targeting
differentiated choice, subjective
quality and value, and
implementation proficiency.
● Qualitative measurements of
value and satisfaction of targeted
content or module delivery.
● Qualitative and quantitative data
of practical content and
promotable, rewards-based
system.
● Qualitative and quantitative data
targeting Level 3 KMO
encouragement domain via
incentivization.
● Assessment tools related to
measuring quality, efficiency,
and value affecting KMO
incentivization.
● Assessment tools related to
measuring quality, efficiency,
and value affecting KMO
motivation and Level 3
encouragement.
● Self-regulatory feedback with
personal critique applied to
collaborative data.
● Stakeholder academic and
professional profiles targeting
Level 3 rewards and
encouragement to Level desired
outcomes.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
241
Table 16. Outcome, Metric(s), Method(s), and Timing: Assessing—Critical Behaviors

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors

1 ● CTS protocol
and resources
that provide
user-friendly
navigation to
access,
progress, and
complete
selected
micro-
credentialing
modules.
● CTS personnel
processes for
engagement and
credentialing
agreements for ethical
and collaborative use
of the micro-
credentialing modules.
● Stakeholder feedback
assessment tools for
module
improvement/s.
● CTS structured management and
collaborative responsibility among
quasi-administrative roles to protect
the efficiency and fidelity of the
modular curriculum/s.
● Qualitative and quantitative
assessment tools to guide stakeholder
opinions.
● Incremental
benchmarks with
quarterly
summative
assessments for
data analysis.
● Pacing calendars
directed to
specific TAY
servicing roles
based on
availability and
learner progress.
● Annual reporting
to tabulate
formative and
summative
measurements to
guide growth and
integration
principles.
2 ● CTS processes
in place to
align modular
training and
credentialing
directed to
specific TAY
standard
KMO
identified
factors.
● CTS emphasis
on self-
directed
instruction
with post-
collaborative
input to guide
instructional
design/s.
● CTS alignment to
coordinate modular
objectives to
organizational mission
statement/s applied to
the TAY learner.
● Assessment tools and accountability
issues addressed in available
document analysis.
● Delineation between stakeholder,
organizational, and TAY goal values.
● Routine formative
assessments
integrated in
module content.
● Quarterly
summative
benchmarks.
● Semester and end-
year cumulative
markers for data
and portfolio
presentation.
3 ● Attainment
and utility
measurements
impacting
stakeholder
and TAY
populations.

● Data-driven
performance and
mastery attainment in
targeted and/or
deficient areas
identified from
qualitative and
quantitative
assessment tools.
● CTS integration of data point
measurements associated with specific
directives and targeted goals identified
in disaggregated data analysis.
● Routine formative
assessments
integrated in
module content.
● Quarterly
summative
benchmarks.
● Semester and end-
year cumulative
markers for data
and portfolio
presentation.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
242
Table 17. Methods, Timing, and Critical Behaviors: Required Drivers—Desired Outcomes

Method(s) Timing Critical Behaviors Supported
Reinforcing
CTS collaborative systems
integrating all relevant
stakeholders: focus on
direct-care personnel.

• Initial
• Module-driven
• Quarterly
• Semesterly
• Annually
1, 2, 3
CTS Portfolio integration
to chart and measure
performance and mastery
credentialing.
• Initial
• Module-driven
• Quarterly
• Semesterly
• Annually
1, 2, 3
CTS development with
partnerships with TAY
specific end-goals
targeting high school
graduation rates and
college and career
readiness.
• Quarterly
• Semesterly
• Annually.
1, 2, 3
CTS appointed quasi-
administrative
opportunities to practice
micro-credentialing
standards related to
organizational duties.
• Module-driven
• Semesterly
• Annually
1, 2, 3
Encouraging
CTS portfolio accounting
for micro-expertise
badges.

• Module-driven
• Quarterly
• Semesterly
• Annually
2, 3
CTS database charting
growth and rewarding
excellence with intrinsic
focus.
• Module-driven
• Quarterly
• Semesterly
• Annually
2, 3
Rewarding
CTS processes tracking
progress and completion of
micro-expertise associated
with organizational
performance goals and
individual mastery
objectives.
• Module-driven
• Quarterly
• Semesterly
• Annually
2, 3
CTS acknowledgement of
portfolio accolades and
achievement of targeted
goals.
• Module-driven
• Quarterly
• Semesterly
• Annually
1, 2, 3

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
243
Organizational Proctoring. CTS’ protocol will integrate administrative or quasi-
administrative leadership opportunities to practice accountability measures related to identified
modular pacing timelines. Organizational proctoring will reinforce system accountability,
provide oversight in leadership opportunities, introduce and reinforce qualitative and quantitative
instrumentation and methodology relevant to stakeholder progress and achievement, and develop
practical and identified adaptation to micro-credentialing and collaborative resources. Required
Drivers will act as markers to identify pacing, progress, completion, and feedback through
qualitative and quantitative data points measured in metrics and temporal indicators (Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2016). Required Drivers are then correlated with “critical behaviors” to guide
instructional design and refinement while protecting the fidelity of the instrumentation and
maintaining stakeholder engagement (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Level 2: Learning goals. The NWKM’s evaluative process is inductively reciprocal
between Level 3 and 4 with refined application to Level 2’s learning goals—working backward
to filter and refine objectives rooted in post-application (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Level 2 will introduce refined clarity to selective and procedural processes for collaborative
and/or micro-credentialing modules. Level 2 identifies module choice, utility, and attainment
factors to address cognitive load, increase ownership, and facilitate performance and mastery
goal values applied to validated KMO barriers (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Declarative,
procedural, and metacognitive knowledge factors are addressed and assessed according to skills,
attitude, confidence, and commitment with time-constraint assumptions (see Table 18).
Level 1: Reaction. As stated, a professional learning approach that engages the audience
(i.e., DCS stakeholder) for personal and professional transference (i.e., TAY learner) addresses
the KMO question of “why” before establishing and relying on the ‘what’ (Tomlinson, 2017).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
244
“Teacher learning ought not to be bound and delivered but rather activated” (Wilson &
Berne,1999, p. 194). Level 1 of the NWKM functions as the foundational component of
professional learning by addressing a filtered “post-reaction” applied to “engagement,”
“relevance,” and “customer satisfaction” as understood through validated KMO barriers
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level 1 reinforces a filtered and audited post-evaluation of
stakeholder subjective responses that affect choice, persistence, and effort (Rueda, 2011). Level
1 allows for accountability through motivational gaps in a KMO critique. Feedback is used to
drive instructional changes based on data-driven indicators (see Table 19).
Evaluation Assessments. “Engaged scholarship” is validated via empirical data to install
accountability measures, drive instruction, and endorse policy (Newman, 2010). CTS’ utility of
premeditated evaluative assessment tools allows for data-driven modifications to shape
professional learning and instructional practices for stakeholder and TAY attainment (Guskey &
Sparks, 2004; Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). CTS’ professional learning development and
deployment will benefit from evaluation assessment models (e.g., NWKM) that provide lateral
integration of organizational commitments and/or philosophical convictions (Newman, 2010).
NWKM evaluation methodology can be complemented by relative applications with nuanced
differences. Guskey’s Professional Development Evaluation Model (GPDEM) adaptation of the
Kirkpatrick (1996) model targets five initial filters to guide evaluative assessment selections:
participant’s reaction; participant’s learning; organizational support and change; participant’s use
of new knowledge and change; student learning. Guskey’s model allows for categorical analysis
of questions addressed, information collected, instrumentation used, and information synthesized
(2002). The interrelated categories extend future research to empirically validate CTS’
professional learning justifications (see Table 20; Figure 8; Appendix L).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
245
Table 18. Components of Learning for the Program.
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Knowledge Barriers
CTS support in professional learning design with clear and simplified processes
that account for declarative, procedural, and metacognitive domain factors.

• Orientation
• Module-driven
• Quarterly
• Semesterly
• Annually
Skills
CTS protocol allows for choice-driven module selection correlated to diagnostic
of goal values. Module development is meant to be reciprocal.

• Orientation
• Module-driven
• Semesterly
• Annually
Attitude
Choice, effort, and persistence indicators solicited individually and collectively
with collaborative, summative feedback and trend and median data indicators.
• Module-driven
• Quarterly
• Semesterly
• Annually
Confidence
CTS measurement of ability referencing cognitive biases that affect data:
Dunning-Kruger Effect; over-confidence bias; confirmation bias.
CTS indicators should itemize sub-skills represented in module requirements.
• Module-driven
• Quarterly
• Semesterly
• Annually
Commitment
Self-regulatory, self-efficacy, and resilience measurements to target and articulate
relative goal orientations highlighted in varied module content.

• Quarterly
• Semesterly
• Annually

Table 19. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Individual measurement
Quasi-administrative observations
• Module-driven
• Quarterly
• Semesterly
• Annually
Relevance
Individual Reflection/s • Module-driven
• Semesterly
Collaborative Feedback • Semesterly
• Annually
Customer Satisfaction
Collaborative Feedback • Module-driven
• Quarterly
• Semesterly
• Annually
Module/micro-credential Evaluation • Module-driven
• Quarterly
• Semesterly
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
246
Table 20. Guskey’s Five Critical Levels for Evaluating Professional Development

Source: Guskey, T. R. (2002). Does It make a difference? Evaluating professional development. Redesigning
Professional Development 50(6), 45-51.

Figure 8: Guskey’s Evaluation Framework

Source: Retrieved from https://ncstar.weebly.com/uploads/5/2/4/4/52444991/creating_effective_professional_
development_as_a_ part_of_ the_sip.pdf.

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
247
As stated, “engaged scholarship” (Newman, 2010) is paramount to attainment, utility,
performance, and mastery values (Senko et al., 2011) untapped with passive participant
interaction. CTS’ identified KMO barriers require protocol that activates the learner’s goal
orientations to supplement a passive "sit and get” experience from the obligatory professional
development artificially measured in “happiness scales” (Sparks, 2004, p. 247).
Instrument Reliability. CTS will need processes that protect the authenticity and verity
of chosen instrumentation to protect from internal threats (McEwan & McEwan, 2003).
Allowing for quantitative and qualitative measurements (e.g., surveys, focus groups,
reflection/feedback strategies) will reinforce participant’s commitments to the training while
guiding necessary professional learning modifications. CTS’ focus to solicit critique from
pertinent stakeholders through varied measurement tools will allow for triangulation of data to
increase instrumentation viability (Fink, 2017; Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Complementary measurement designs to NWKM and GPDEM already discussed can target and
accommodate varied contextual applications (Illustrated in Figure 9). Additionally, targeted
module distinctions can be formulated into prescribed interrogative feedback, soliciting KMO
factors specific to the module (e.g., Micro-Credential Orientation Evaluation Instrument (see
Table 21). CTS’ action plan and pacing calendar should integrate complementary quantitative
nominal and/or ordinal survey benchmarks for assurance reliability and stakeholder
satisfaction—driving active modifications correlated with qualitative feedback data (see Table 21
& 22).

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
248
Figure 9. Guskey and Sparks' Relationship Model: d-evelopment and improvements
Source: Guskey and Sparks' 1996 model of the relationship between professional development and improvements in
student learning.

Table 21. Micro-Credential Orientation Evaluation Instrument.
Survey items
Scale
Strongly Disagree. Disagree, Agree
Strongly, Agree
I found the learner platform easy to use.
I found the icons useful visual representations.
I was able to select micro-credentials easily.
I would prefer to experience this orientation training
face-to-face.

I preferred to experience this training virtually.
I was able to confidently select a MC that I felt will meet
my needs.

Please provide your suggestions for how this orientation
might be improved.

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
249
Table 22. Micro-Credential Interrogative Evaluation Instrument
Qualitative Interrogative Feedback
Participation and Selection:
Who is choosing what micro-credential?
How did the designers arrive at the set of micro-credentials? Did they conduct a needs analysis?
Did the participant self-select into the program? If not, how was the participant connected to a specific micro-
credential?
Participant Reactions:
Did the participant find the professional learning useful, informative, and engaging?
Participant Knowledge:
What did the participant hope to learn?
What did the participant learn?
What is the connection between what the participant hoped to learn, the learning objectives of the micro-
credential, what the participant actually learned, and what the participant applies on the job?
Participant Actions:
How does the micro-credential affect practice?
How does the participant intend to use what they learn in the micro-credential?
Student Success:
Before taking the Micro-Credential: What affect will the micro-credential have on students? That is, how will
students be different as a result of this micro-credential?
During the Micro-Credential: How has the teacher changed his/her perspective of the effect of the micro-
credential on students? That is, now that the teacher is taking the micro-credential, how has his/her thinking
changed to the effect it will have on students?
After the Micro-Credential: What effect has the micro-credential actually had on students? Can we draw
theoretical and ultimately causal connections between the micro-credential and student success?
Organizational Support and Change:
What effect has the professional learning had on the school environment?
What barriers prevent participants from using what they have learned?
What affordances of the environment promote use?

Source: Adapted from Evaluating Micro-Credentialing. Guskey’s (2000) variant of the Kirkpatrick (1996) model.
Retrieved from https://thefindingsgroup.org/2017/05/02/evaluating-micro-credentialing/

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
250
NWKM Application. This research design focuses on CTS’ adoption of The New World
Kirkpatrick Model for evaluative purposes, strengthening the professional learning framework
from both deductive and inductive collaborative feedback. Identification of key roles, indicators,
and the facilitation of required drivers, high-interest, choice-driven, promotable, differentiated
strategies will function as pillars within the instructional design. CTS will be accountable for the
fidelity of data measurements to drive objective performance and mastery end-goals. Data should
be used to align organizational goals with professional learning objectives affecting the
participating stakeholder/s (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Lastly, all directives should be
consistently vetted to be in alignment with improving quality and equitable access of targeted
TAY resources and services required to improve high school graduation rates and college and
career readiness skills.
Stakeholder Goals. As stated in Chapter One, proposed organizational, DCS
stakeholder, and TAY goals will generate benchmarks for integration. For example, repeating the
organizational goal that affects access to TAY resources and services affecting the DCS
stakeholder and TAY learner, CTS, after one year of improved and suggested resource
intervention strategies designed for the DCS professional stakeholders, the organizational
structure and implementation of programs and services will be practiced in all TAY group homes
and communicated in all applicable mission statements. The desired organizational goal is to
claim visible reciprocity between all TAY facilities with a diligent system to monitor and track
graduation rates and post-secondary involvement. Among the TAY female group home
population, CTS will seek to achieve an 80% high school graduation rate to close the 29%
achievement gap disparity between foster care TAY and non-foster care learners reported on the
2020 CDE accountability report. See Table 1.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
251
Table 1. Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Vision
To be a community leader and exemplary model in promoting sustainable independence for TAY
foster care children residing in community-based live-in facilities seeking assistance in living
autonomous, productive, and prosperous lives.
Organizational Stakeholder Goal
In one year of TAY resource intervention adoption, CTS will chart, monitor, implement, facilitate,
and achieve 80% high school graduation for all senior TAY residents with 60% verification of
AB12 qualification and post-secondary education and/or employment goal orientations.
DCS Stakeholder Goal
In one year of the TAY resource intervention adoption, the DCS employees will have been trained,
resourced, evaluated, and certified in related high school graduation supports (i.e., pedagogical,
cognitive, and motivational factors) to promote and validate the organizational goal mission.
TAY Learner Stakeholder Goal
In one year of the TAY resource intervention adoption, the CTS’ TAY learners will have been
exposed to effective DCS KMO modeling and will display academic and social improvement
impacting high school graduation qualification and college and career readiness for TAY
autonomy.

Recommendations for Further Study
Building a bridge between the tangible and intangible components of KMO “gaps” is a
quest for improved and progressive instrumentation and methodology. Specifically, cognitive
science accounts for concrete and abstract factors in learning acquisition research; however,
quantifying brain activity and growth through the lens of neuropsychology increases an objective
validity of qualitative methodology. Beyond the scope and sequence of this research design, CTS
can look forward to the increasing quantification of learning pertaining to metacognitive and
motivational decision-making. For example, the prospect of neuroscience allows for the mapping
and visible tracing of cognitive activity of assumed factors shaping the evolutionary trajectory of
the learner’s development and, consequently, redirecting educational worldviews and
pedagogical instruction (Immordino-Yang, 2011).

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
252
According to Chiao, Cheon, Pornpattananangkul, & Blizinsky (2013), the advent of
scientific, cultural, and biological research anticipate genetic and social variables that shape
learner’s perspectives and account for measurable brain development. CTS’ future instructional
designs will be greatly amplified when addressing multi-layered TAY socio-cultural and
emotional contingencies impacting content acquisition of KMO demands. The ability to tangibly
chart engagement and interest affecting effort and persistence is a dynamic advancement to
concretely measure and improve TAY learning and living KMO goal values.
The possibility of a tangible validation of theorized genetics influencing cognitive, social,
and behavioral outcomes faithfully addresses differentiated and equitable concerns (Roepstorff,
2013). Neuropsychology's viable identification of physical and psychological factors shaping
maturation and cognition is a transformational complement to educational theory and scientific
learning research. CTS’ TAY learner should be considered as a vital candidate for
neuropsychological integration to guide instructional strategies.
Conclusion
CTS’ STRTP living accommodations serve a specific TAY female clientele that has
exhausted long-term foster care opportunities. CTS’ STRTP TAY residential services for
females between the ages of 13-19 rely on the efficacy of services designed to promote
sustainable skills for lifelong stability, self-sufficiency, and contentment. This Gap Analysis
identified, evaluated, and proposed solutions to KMO factors impacting educational,
psychological, and social autonomy impeding TAY high school graduation rates and college and
career readiness. An outcome of this study is a tangible, scripted protocol of required resources
to promote high school graduation rates and support services for viable independence beyond
STRTP residency. Findings and solutions addressed validated, partially validated, or not
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
253
validated KMO domains for integration, refinement, and developmental resources. Knowledge
Declarative data analyzed cognitive science, pedagogy, instrumentation, self-regulation, and self-
confidence. Knowledge Procedural data measured differentiation, goal values, methodology,
data collection, and collaborative strategies. Knowledge Metacognitive data reported cognitive
taxonomy, attributions and contingencies, schema, and cognitive attrition. Motivational data
measured choice selection, instructional design, goal values, socio-cultural and emotional
influences, schema integration, and cognitive barriers. Lastly, Organizational data quantified
CTS’ professional learning and instructional design, fidelity of TAY resources, accountability
protocol, cross-disciplinary alignment, incentivization, collaboration, and culture/climate factors.
Identified KMO barriers are addressed with itemized solutions impacting each constituent
member related to interaction with the TAY learner. Results and findings drove data-driven
solutions for professional learning integration filtered through Gap Analysis instrumentation
(Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). This Gap Analysis validated barriers, proposed data-driven
solutions to address KMO gaps, and provided qualitative and quantitative assessment tools to
improve differentiated instruction, promoting the individual learner and organizational
commitments.
This Gap Analysis examined and evaluated systemic organizational factors that affect the
proficiency, relevancy, utility, and attainment of integral TAY resources and services impacting
high school graduation rates and college and career readiness competencies. KMO domain
analysis targeted categorical factors influencing the DCS stakeholder, TAY learner, professional
learning protocol, administrative personnel, and organizational obligations. The objective and
subjective critique of practicing instrumentation and methodology supports data-driven results
and findings reliant on the validity and reliability of organizational processes.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
254
Objective data collection is the foundation of KMO identification, validation, and
solution-based indicators triangulated via document analysis, DCS focus groups, and
administrative interviews. Data-driven, proximal development, high-interest, and performance-
based professional learning is this study’s proposition to increase differentiated, collaborative,
viable solutions addressing KMO barriers aiding the TAY learner’s autonomy—high school
promotion and college and career readiness emancipatory life-skills. This research design
analyses, synthesizes, and evaluates learner-based inquiry, cognitive barriers, data-driven
pedagogy, and investigative, scientific protocol to improve CTS’ dedication to serve the TAY
learner residing in STRTP homes.
An overall improvement of the identified KMO factors in this Gap Analysis is a catalyst
to address systemic organizational variables that dictate the DCS stakeholder’s KMO strengths
and weaknesses for TAY modeling and transfer (Clark & Estes, 2008). Implementation of this
framework will create a viable intervention that accommodates concrete and abstract variables
unique to the DCS stakeholder in the context of STRTP education. This framework, if
implemented with steadfastness, hopes to improve CTS’ STRTP resources and services with
special emphasis on educational practices that honor CTS’ mission statement. The external
generalizability of this Gap Analysis can be extended to diverse contexts with varied application,
identifying KMO gaps beyond the STRTP context. As stated, the intent of this research is to
improve the necessary TAY resources and services to honor our salient ethical accountability
and altruistic responsibility (Scott & Palinscar, 2006): the dignity, the moral right of man to life,
its development and cultivation, as well as the values of justice, responsibility, tolerance, and
obligation” (Gluchman, 2017, p. 1). (For a list of term definitions and acronyms, see Appendix
N).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
255
References
Abdul Jabbar, A. I., & Felicia, P. (2015). Gameplay engagement and learning in game-based
learning: A systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 740-779.
Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System. (2019). AFCARS report #26.
Retrieved March 12, 2020, from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/resource/afcars-report-26.
Aguilar, E. (2013). The art of coaching: Effective strategies for school transformation. New
York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Alferi, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based
instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1-18.
Alkin, M.C., & Vo, A.T. (2017). Evaluation essentials: From A to Z. 2
nd
Edition. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Allal, L., & Ducrey, G. P. (2000). Assessment of—or in—the zone of proximal development,
Learning and Instruction, 10,2, 137-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(99)00025-0.
Anderman, E., & Anderman, L. (2010). Attribution Theory. Retrieved from https://reserves.usc.
edu/ares/ares.dll?Action=10&Type=10&Value=204664.
Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY:
Longman.
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
AlShammari, I. A. (2011). Anywhere anytime personalized professional development for
teachers: Kuwait perspective. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 4(8), 55.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
256
Bandura, A. (1986). Fearful expectations and avoidant actions as coeffects of perceived self-
inefficacy. American Psychologist, 41(12), 1389–1391. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066X.41.12.1389
Bang, M. (2014). Culture, learning, and development and the natural world: The influences of
situative perspectives. Educational Psychologist, 50(3), 220-233.
Bayless, A., & Roe-Sepowitz, D. (2018). Teen sex trafficking: Make a difference by
understanding the issue, recognizing the warning signs and knowing how to seek help.
Retrieved from https://socialwork.asu.edu/sites/default/files/Teen%20Sex%20Trafficking
%20Awareness%20Training%20Brochure.pdf.
Berg, C. A., & Strough, J. (2011). Problem solving across the life span. In K. Fingerman, C. A.
Berg, T. Antonnuci, & J. Smith. (Eds.), Handbook of life-span development, (pp. 239-
260). New York, NY: Springer.
Black, P., & William, D. (1998, Oct.). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom
assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139-148. http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan
/kbla9810.htm.
Bogue, E. G., & Hall, K. (2003). College rankings and ratings: The test of reputation. In E.G.
Bogue & K. Hall (Eds.), Quality and accountability in higher education: Improving
policy, enhancing performance, (pp. 51-75). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Boston University of Public Health. (2020). Behavioral change models: Social Cognitive Theory.
Retrieved from https://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-Modules/SB/BehavioralChange
Theories/BehavioralChangeTheories5.html
Bowgen, L., & Sever, K. (2009). Differentiated professional development in a professional
learning community. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
257
Brown, B. A., Henderson, J. B., Gray, S., Donovan, B., & Sullivan, S. (2013). From access to
success: Identity contingencies & African-American pathways to science. Higher
Education Studies, 3(1), 1-13. https://doi:10.5539/hes.v3n1p1.
Brantley, N. (2020). What is csec? Learn and share your knowledge. Retrieved from
http://www.nolabrantleyspeaks.org/what-is-csec.html.
Bretzmann, J. (2015). Personalized pd: Flipping your professional development. Bretzmann
Group, LLC. WI: Bretzmann Group.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2009). Ecology of human development: Experiments by Nature and Design.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Retrieved from https://khoerulan
warbk.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/urie_bronfenbrenner_the_ecology_of_human_devel
opbokos-z1.pdf.
Brown, B. A., Henderson, J. B., Gray, S., Donovan, B., & Sullivan, S. (2013). From access to
success: Identity contingencies & African-American pathways to science. Higher
Education Studies, 3(1), 1-13. https://doi:10.5539/hes.v3n1p1.
Brown, S., & Wilderson, D. (2010). Homeless prevention for former foster youth: Utilization of
transitional housing programs. Children and Youth Services Review, 32, 1464-1472.
Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, break all the rules: What the world’s greatest
managers do differently. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Burbank, M. D., & Kauchak, D. (2003). An alternative model for professional development:
Investigations into effective collaboration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(5), 499-
514.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
258
Burke, J. C. (2004). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic,
and market demands. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), The many faces of accountability (pp. 1-
24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Butler, D. L., Lauscher, H. N., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Beckingham, B. (2004). Collaboration and
self-regulation in teachers’ professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education,
20(5), 435-455.
California Department of Education. (2020). Foster youth services-caledfacts. Retrieved from
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/pf/fy/ceffosteryouth.asp.
California Department of Social Services. (2020). Benefits & services: Assembly Bill 12—After
18 Program. Retrieved from https://www.cdss.ca.gov/transitional-housing.
California Legislative Information Digest. (2019). Assembly Bill No. 175 CHAPTER 416.
Retrieved from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill
id=201920200AB175.
California Transitional Services. (2020). Short-term Residential Therapeutic Program. Retrieved
url protected for anonymity.
California Youth Connections (2020). Legislative change through youth empowerment.
Retrieved from https://calyouthconn.org/leadership-in-action/policy-work/.
Carpenter, S. K. (2012). Testing enhances the transfer of learning. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 21(5), 279-283.
Carroll, K., & Bishop, P. M. (2002). The Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 and The John H.
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program. Retrieved from https://www.ncjfcj.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/03/ChafeeBrief.pdf.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
259
CASALA. (2019). Court Appointed Special Advocates: Transition Age Youth. Retrieved March
10, 2020, from https://casala.org/transition-age-youth/.
Casey Family Programs. (2019). Foster care state data: State fact sheet California. Retrieved
from https://www.casey.org/state-data/.
Catmull, E., & Wallace, A. (2014). Creativity, inc.: Overcoming the unseen forces that stand in
the way of true inspiration. New York, CA: Random House.
California Department of Social Services. (2020). Short-term Residential Therapeutic Program
(CDSS: STRTP): Interim licensing standards. Sacramento, CA: California Department of
Social Services. Retrieved from https://www.cdss.ca.gov/Portals/9/CCL/ Childrens-
Residential-Licensing/ILS/FINAL%20STRTP%20ILS%20v3.1%20
(12.8.2020%20rev.)_ADA.pdf
Charleston County School District (CCSD). (2016). CCSD Personalized Learning [Brochure].
Charleston, SC.
Cheng, J. (2017). Data mining research in education. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.
net /publication/315718023_Data-Mining_Research_in Education.
Chiao, J. Y, Cheon, B. K., Pornpattananangkul, N. Mrazek, A. J., Y Blizinsky, K. D. (2013).
Cultural neuroscience: Progress and promise. Psychological Inquiry, 24, 1-19.
Children’s Bureau. (2012). John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program. Retrieved from
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/resource/chafee-foster-care-program.
Children’s Bureau. (2017). Exited foster care during FY. Retrieved from https://cwoutcomes.
acf.hhs.gov/cwodatasite/exitedCare/index.
Chkhartishvili, A. & Kozitsin, I. (2018). Binary separation index for STRTP chamber effect
measuring. https://doi: 10.1109/MLSD.2018.8551823
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
260
Choi, H., van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. (2014). Effects of the physical environment on
cognitive load and learning: Towards a new model of cognitive load. Educational
Psychology Review, 26(2), 22-244.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Clark, R.E. [the guide on the side]. (2012, 05). "Automated Knowledge" by Dr. Richard E. Clark
implications for future research, 70 Percent Rule. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=SSK63nqEbLQ&feature=youtu.be.
Clark, R.E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Clark, R.E., Feldon, D., Van Merrienboer, J.J.G., Yates, K., & Early, S. (2008). Cognitive Task
Analysis. In J.M. Spector, M.D. Merrill, J.J.G. van Merrienboer, & M.P. Driscoll (Eds.).
Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 577-
593). New York: Macmillan/Gale.
Clark, R. E., Yates, K., Early, S. & Moulton, K. (2010). An analysis of the failure of electronic
media and discovery-based learning: Evidence for the performance benefits of guided
training methods. In K. H. Silber, & R. Foshay, (Eds.), Handbook of training and
improving workplace performance, Volume I: Instructional design and training delivery
(pp. 263-297). New York: Wiley and Sons.
Congressional Research Service. (2019). Youth transitioning from foster care: Background and
federal programs. Retrieved from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34499.pdf.
Conley, D T., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Creating systems of assessment for deeper
learning. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
261
Conner, T. W., & Rabovsky, T. M. (2011). Accountability, affordability, access: A review of the
recent trends in higher education policy research. Policy Studies Journal, 39(s1), 93–112.
County of Los Angeles (Producer). (2020). The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children:
CSEC: 101. Retrieved from https://lacounty.gov/human-trafficking/.
County Welfare Director's Association of California. (2020). Commercial Sexual Exploitation of
Children (CSEC). Retrieved from https://www.cwda.org/csec.
Courtney, M. E., Dworsky, A., & Peters, C. M. (2009). California’s Fostering Connections to
Success Act and the costs and benefits of extending foster care to 21. Seattle, WA:
Partners for our Children. Retrieved from http://www.cafosteringconnections.org
/pdfs/Courtney,%20Dworsky,%20&%20Peters%20(2009)%20FC%20to%2021.pdf.
Courtney, M. E., Okpych, N. J., & Park, S. E. (2018). Calyouth findings on the relationship
between extended foster care and youth's outcomes at Age 21. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nathanael_Okpych/ publication/329041300
_Report_from_CalYOUTH_Findings_on_the_Relationship_between_Extended_Foster_
Care_and_Youth's_Outcomes_at_Age_21/links/5bf2d010a6fdcc3a8de22d16/Report-
from-CalYOUTH-Findings-on-the-Relationship-between-Extended-Foster-Care-and-
Youths-Outcomes-at-Age-21.pdf.
Creasy, J., & Paterson, F. (2005). Leading coaching in schools. 2005. Nottingham: National
College for School Leadership. United Kingdom.
Creswell, J.W., and Creswell, J.D. (2018). Research Design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009).
Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
262
in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.
Research review/teacher learning: What matters. Educational Leadership, 66(5), 46-53.
Darwin Center for Biogeology. (2021). Binnenwerkdarwin. Retrieved from http://www.darw
incenter.nl/Content/Downloads/def%20binnenwerkdarwin08%E2%80%A2%E2%80%A
2%E2%80%A2.pdf.
Deklotz, P. F. (2016, November). The energizing impact of micro-credentials in Kettle Moraine.
School Administrator, 73(10), 22. Retrieved from http://link.galegroup.com.
libproxy2.usc.edu/apps/doc/A471849358/AONE?u=usocal_main&sid=AONE&xid=328
460ca
Dinsmore, D. L, Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on
metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology
Review, 20, 391-409.
Dinsmore, D. L., Baggetta, P., Doyle, S., & Loughlin, S. M. (2014). The role of initial learning,
problem feature, prior knowledge, and pattern recognition on transfer success. The
Journal of Experimental Education, 82(1), 121-141.
Doran, G. T. (1981). “There's a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management's goals and objectives.”
Management Review. 70 (11): 35–36.
Dowd, A. C. (2005). Data don’t drive: Building a practitioner-driven culture of inquiry to assess
community college performance. Boston: University of Massachusetts, Lumina
Foundation for Education.
Dubnick, M. (2003). Accountability and ethics: Reconsidering the relationships. International
Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 6(3), 405–441.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
263
Dubnick, M. (2014). Accountability as cultural keyword. In M. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, & T.
Schillemans (Eds.), Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 23–28). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
DuFour, R. (2007). Professional learning communities: A bandwagon, an idea worth
considering, or our best hope for high levels of learning? Middle School Journal, 39(1),
4-8.
Duncan‐Andrade, J. (2007). Gangstas, wankstas, and ridas: Defining, developing, and supporting
effective teachers in urban schools. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 20(6), 617-638.
Dunn, W.E., & Lantolf, J. (2008). Zone of Proximal Development and Krashen's i+1:
Incommensurable constructs; Incommensurable theories. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-
8333.00048
Dyer, J., Gregersen, H., & Christensen, C. (2011). Innovator’s DNA: Mastering the five skills of
disruptive innovators. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Eccles, J. (2010). Expectancy Motivational Theory. Retrieved from https://reserves.usc.edu/
ares/ares.dll? Action=10&Type=10&Value=204668.
Etymonline. (2020). Online etymology dictionary: Origin, history and meaning of English
words. Retrieved March 12, 2020, from https://www.etymonline.com/.
Feldon, D. (2006). Expertise. Retrieved fromhttp://www.education. com/reference/article/
expertise/.
Fink, A. (2017). How to conduct surveys (6thed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
264
Firestone, W. A., & Shipps, D. (2005). How do leaders interpret conflicting accountabilities to
improve student learning? In W. A. Firestone & C. Riehl (Eds.), A new agenda for
research in educational leadership (pp. 81-91). New York: Teachers College Press.
Foster, E., George, M., Jenkins, S., Moyer, J., Williams, M. (2016). The shifting paradigm of
teaching: Personalized learning according to teachers. Retrieved from
https://knowledgeworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/teacher-conditions.pdf.
Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children's academic
engagement and performance. Journal of educational psychology, 95(1), 148.
Gasiewski, J. A., Eagan, M. K., Garcia, G. A., Hurtado, S., & Chang, M. J. (2012). From
gatekeeping to engagement: A multicontextual, mixed method study of student academic
engagement in introductory STEM courses. Research in higher education, 53(2), 229-
261.
Gimbel, S. (2016). An introduction to Formal Logic. The Great Courses. Retrieved from
https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/an-introduction-to-formal-logic.
Gluchman, V. (2017). G. E. Moore and theory of moral/right action in ethics of social
consequences. Retrieved from https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/ebce.2017.7.
issue-1-2/ebce-2017-0002/ebce-2017-0002.pdf.
Grim, P. (2013). The philosopher's toolkit: How to be the most rational person in any room.
Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company.
Goddard, C., Hannon, V., Peterson, A., & Temperley, J. (2014). Global trends in professional
learning and performance and development: Some implications and ideas for the
Australian education system. Retrieved from https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-
source/default-document-library/horizon_scan_report.pdf
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
265
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Does It make a difference? Evaluating professional development.
Redesigning Professional Development 50(6), 45-51.
Guskey, T.R. & Sparks, D. (2004). Linking professional development to improvements in
student learning. In E.M. Guyton & J.R. Dangel (Eds.), Teacher Education Yearbook
XII: Research Linking Teacher Preparation and Student Performance, Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt.
Guskey, T. R., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). What works in professional development? Phi Delta
Kappan, 90(7), 495-500.
Hallak, J., & Poisson, M. (2005). Academic fraud and quality assurance: Facing the challenge of
internationalization of higher education. Paris: Institute for Educational Planning.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Canning, E. A., Tibbetts, Y., Priniski, S. J., & Hyde, J. S. (2016). Closing
achievement gaps with a utility-value intervention: Disentangling race and social class.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(5), 745–765.
Hargadon, A. (2003). How breakthroughs happen: The surprising truth about how companies
innovate. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Hargreaves, D. H. (2006). A new shape for schooling. Specialist schools and academies trust.
Retrieved from https://www.tsatrust.org.uk/about/about-us/.
Heick, T. (2017). What is The Cognitive Load Theory? A definition for teachers. Teachthought.
Retrieved from https://www.teachthought.com/learning/cognitive-load-theory-
definition-teachers/.
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. USC Urban Ed.
Los Angeles: University of Southern California: Rossier School of Education. Retrieved
from http://www.edsource.org/pub_new-fed-policies.html.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
266
Herold, B. (2017, February). Personalized learning and the internet of things: Q&A [Web log
post]. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/technology/personalized-learning-and-
the-internet-of-things-q-a/2017/02
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Zosh, J. M., Golinkoff, R. M., Gray, J. H., Robb, M. B., & Kaufman, J. (2015).
Putting education in “educational” apps: Lessons from the science of learning.
Psychological Science, 16(1), 3-34.
Howland, J., & Wedman, J. (2004). A process model for DCS development: Individualizing
technology learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(2), 239.
H.R. Res. 6893, 110th Cong., 122 Cong. Rec. 3959 (2008) (enacted).
Ibarra, H. (2015). Act like a leader, think like a leader. Boston, MA: Harvard Review Press.
Ifenthaler, D., Bellin-Mularski, N., & Dana-Kristin, M. (2016). Foundations of digital badges
and micro-credentials. Switzerland: Springer International. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-319-15425-1
Immordino-Yang. M. H. (2011). Implications of affective and social neuroscience for
educational theory. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(1), 98-103.
Johansson, A. (2011). What influences students´ motivation for learning English grammar?
Retrieved November 30, 2019, from http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=
diva2%3A373545.
Jones, J., & Gragg, J. B. (2012). Transitional foster youth’s perceptions of preparation to act as
self-advocates: A phenomenological study. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy
for Couples and Families, 4, 411-418.
Kallick, B., & Zmuda, A. (2017). Students at the center: Personalized learning with habits of
mind. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
267
Keller, T. E., Salazar, A. M., & Courtney, M. E. (2010). Prevalence and timing of diagnosable
mental health, alcohol, and substance use problems among older adolescents in the child
welfare system. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC2840264/.
Killion, J., & Harrison, C. (2017). Taking the lead new roles for teachers and school-based
coaches (2
nd
ed.). Oxford, OH: Learning Forward.
Kim, S., & McLean, G. N. (2014). The impact of national culture on informal learning in the
workplace. Adult Educational Quarterly, 64(1), 39-59.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Association for Talent Development. Retrieved from https://www.td.org/.
Kirschner, P. A., Kirschner, F, & Paas, F. (2006). Cognitive Load Theory. Retrieved from
https://reserves.usc.edu/ares/ares.dll?Action=10&Type=10&Value=204667.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction
does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based
experiential and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Klasey, N., & Brantley-Harris, N. (2020). The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children:
Building awareness and engagement strategies [PowerPoint slides].
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Labone, E., & Long, J. (2016). Features of effective professional learning: A case study of the
implementation of a system-based professional learning model. Professional
Development in Education, 42(1), 54-77.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
268
Lee, J., & Shute, V. J. (2010). Personal and social-contextual factors in K-12 academic
performance: An integrative perspective on student learning. Educational Psychologist,
45(3), 185-202.
Lee, M., Walker, A., & Ling Chui, Y. (2012). Contrasting effects of instructional leadership
practices on student learning in a high accountability context. Journal of Educational
Administration, 50(5), 586–611.
Legislative Analyst’s Office. (2017). Assessing UC and CSU enrollment and capacity.
Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved from https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3532.
Lieberman, A., Campbell, C., & Yashkina, A. (2016). Teacher learning and leadership: Of, by,
and for teachers. Retrieved from https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781315673424
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. &, Pekrun. R. (2011). Students’ emotions and academic engagement.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 1-3.
Lipnevich, A. A., McCallen, L. N., Miles, K. P., & Smith, J. K. (2014). Mind the gap! Students’
use of exemplars and detailed rubrics as formative assessment. Instructional Science,
42(4), 539-559.
MacCann, C., Fogarty, G J., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2010). Coping mediates the
relationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and academic achievement.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 60-70.
Mares, M. & Pan, Z. (2013). Effects of Sesame Street: A meta-analysis of children’s learning in
15 countries. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 34(3), 140-151.
Marsh, J. A. (2012). Interventions promoting educators’ use of data: Research insights and gaps.
Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1–48.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
269
Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. F., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision making
in education. Rand Education Occasional Paper. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP170.html.
Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective
instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty B. (2005). The 21 responsibilities of the school leader.
School leadership that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Retrieved from https://reserves.
usc.edu/ares/ares.dll?SessionID=I192710057L&Action=10&Type=10&Value=82389.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Mayer, R. E., & Alexander, P. A. (2017). Handbook of research on learning instruction. New
York, NY: Routledge.
McEwan, E., & McEwan, J. (2003). Making sense of research: What’s good, what’s not, and
how to tell the difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Mcleod, Saul. (2018). Solomon Asch – Conformity Experiment. Simply Psychology. Retrieved
from https://www.simplypsychology.org/asch-conformity.html.
Medina, John J. (2014). Your best brain. Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Murdock, T. B., & Anderman, E. M. (2006). Motivational perspectives on student cheating:
Toward an integrated model of academic dishonesty. Educational Psychologist 4(13),
129-145.
Myers, D. (2004). Psychology: David G. Myers. New York: Worth.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
270
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. (2020). The issues: Child Sex
Trafficking. Retrieved from https://www.missingkids.org/theissues/trafficking.
National Youth in Transition Database Report. (2020). National Youth in Transition Database
Report to Congress: California. Retrieved from https://www.cdss.ca.gov/inforesources
/foster-care/national-youth-in-transition-database.
Newman, D. O. (2010). An empirical validation of Guskey's Professional Development
Evaluation Model using six years of student and teacher level reading data. ETD Archive.
219. Retrieved from https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/etdarchive/219.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). (2020). Commercial Sexual
Exploitation of Children (CSEC). Retrieved from https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/programs/
commercial -sexual-exploitation-children
O’Day, J. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational
Review, 72, 293-329.
Pajares, F. (2010). Self-efficacy Theory. Retrieved from https://reserves.usc.edu/ares/ares.dll?
Action=10&Type=10&Value=204673.
Pane, J. F., Steiner, E. D., Baird, M. D., & Hamilton, L. S. (2015). Continued progress:
Promising evidence on personalized learning. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id
=ED571009.
Patall, E. A., Pituch, K. A., Steingut, R. R., Vasquez, A. C., Yates, N., & Kennedy, A. A.U.
(2019). Agency and high school science students’ motivation, engagement, and
classroom support experiences. Accepted for publication at Journal of Applied
Development Psychology, 62, 77-92.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
271
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Pekrun, R. (2011). Emotions as drivers of learning and cognitive development. In R. A. Calvo &
S. K. D’Mello(Eds.), New perspectives on affect and learning technologies (pp. 23-39).
New York: Springer. https://doi 10.1007/978-1-4419-9625-1_3.
Phenicie, C. (2017). The Senate's 50–49 killing of ESSA rules: A sweeping change in how
America will rate (and fix) schools. Retrieved from https://www.the74million.org/article/
the-senates-50-49-killing-of-essa-rules-a-sweeping-change-in-how-america-will-rate-
and-fix-schools/.
Philip, T. M., & Garcia, A. D. (2013). The importance of still teaching the igeneration: New
technologies and the centrality of pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 83(2), 300-
319.
Reeves, D. B. (2010). Transforming professional development into student results. Alexandria,
Va: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Rickabaugh, J. (2016). Tapping the power of personalized learning: A roadmap for school
leaders. Alexandria, Va: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Riley, B. (2017). Personalization vs. how people learn. Educational Leadership,74(6), 68-72.
Robinson, D. (2004). The great ideas of philosophy, 2nd edition. Chantilly, VA: The Teaching
Company.
Robinson Kurpius, S. E., & Stafford M. E. (2006). Testing and measurement: A user-friendly
guide. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Roepstorff, A. (2013). Why am I not just lovin’ cultural neuroscience? Toward a slow science of
cultural difference. Psychological Inquiry, 24, 61-63.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
272
Roe-Sepowitz, D., Gallagher, J., Hogan, K., Ward, T., Denecour, N., Bracy, K. (2017). A six-
year analysis if sex traffickers of minors. Retrieved from https://socialwork.asu.edu
/sites/default/files/ASU-Sex-Traffickers-of-Minors-Six-Year-Study-Full-Report-April-
2017.pdf.
Romzek, B. S., & Dubnick, M. J. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the
Challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47(3), 227-238. Retrieved from
https://blackboard.usc.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-5945948-dt-content-rid-224845992
/courses/20192_educ_522_26502/Unit%202%20Romzek_Dubnick.pdf
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and
new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67.
Salkind, N. J. (2016). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (6thed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. J. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for
both users and nearby peers. Computers and Education, 62, 24-31.
Schunn, C., & Nelson, M. (2006). Expert-novice studies. Retrieved from http://www.education.
com/reference/article/expert-novice-studies/.
Schmidt, H. G., Loyens, S. M., van Gog., T., Pass, F. (2007). Problem-based learning is
compatible with human cognitive architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and
Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 91-97.
Scott, S., & Palinscar, A. (2006). Sociocultural Theory. Retrieved from https://reserves.usc.edu
/ares/ares.dll?Action=10&Type=10&Value=204675.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
273
Senge, P. (1990). The leader’s new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan Management
Review, Fall 1990, 7-23.
Senko, C., Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2011). Achievement Goal Theory at the
crossroads: Old controversies, current challenges, and new directions. Educational
Psychologist, 46, 26-47.
Sims, A. R. (1988). Independent living services for youths in foster care. Social Work, 33(6),
539-542. http://doi:10.1093/sw/33.6.539.
Spaulding, D. T., & Smith, G. M. (2012). Instructional coaches and the instructional leadership
team: A guide for school-building improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Stankov, L., & Kleitman, S. (2014). Whither metacognition. Learning and Individual
Differences, 29, 120-122. Retrieved from http://hillkm.com/EDUC_715/Unit_7/
stankov_kleitman_2014.pdf
State of California Department of Justice: Office of the Attorney General. (2020). Human
trafficking. Retrieved from https://oag.ca.gov/human-trafficking.
Stecher, B., & Kirby, S. N. (2004). Introduction. In B. Stecher & S. N. Kirby, Organizational
improvement and accountability: Lessons for education from other sectors (pp. 1-7).
Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Retrieved November 14, 2005, from
http://www.rand.org/publications/MG/MG136.
Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting autonomy
in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership.
Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 97-110.
Stolle-McAllister, K. (2011). The case for summer bridge: Building social and cultural capital
for talented Black STEM students. Science Educator, 20(2), 12-22.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
274
Stott, T. (2012). Placement instability and risky behaviors of youth aging out of care. Child and
Adolescent Social Work Journal, 29(1), 61-83.
Stott, T., & Gustavsson, N. (2010). Balancing permanency and stability for youth in foster care.
Children and Youth Services Review, 32, 619-625.
Strike, K. A., Haller, E. J., & Soltis, J. F. (2005). The ethics of school administration. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Stringer, K., Kenny, M., Kim, R., & Kelly, J. (2019). State report cards must track graduation
rates for foster youth. Retrieved from https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/child-welfare-
2/federal-legislation-says-state-report-cards-must-track-reading-and-math-scores-high-
school-graduation-rates-for-youth-in-foster-care-only-16-do/33911.
Sweeney, D. (2011). Student centered coaching: A guide for K-8 coaches and principals.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Taylor, M., Yates, A., Meyer, L. H., & Kinsella, P. (2011). Teacher professional leadership in
support of teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1),
85-94.
Timperley, H. (2008). Teacher professional learning and development. Educational practices
series. International Academy of Education: Bureau of Education, Brussels Belgium &
Perth, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/dept/smec/iae.
Timperley, H., & Alton-Lee, A. (2008). Reframing teacher professional learning: An alternative
policy approach to strengthening valued outcomes for diverse learners. Review of
Research in Education, 32(1), 328-369. https://doi:10.3102/0091732X07308968.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
275
Timperley, H., Annan, B., & Robinson, V. M. (2009). Successful approaches to innovation that
have impacted on student learning in New Zealand. In Reforming learning (pp. 345-
364). Springer-Netherlands.
Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2008). Teacher professional learning and
development. Belley, France: Imprimerie Nouvelle Gonnet.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2017). Let’s celebrate personalization but not too fast. Educational
Leadership,74(6).
USC Board of Trustees. (2004). Code of ethics of the University of Southern California.
Retrieved from http://www.usc.edu/about/core_documents/usc_code_of_ethics.html.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2020). 1996 green book: SECTION 12. Child
Protection. Child welfare programs today: The Title IV-E Independent Living Program.
Retrieved from http://www.welfareacademy.org/research/greenboo/sect12/12ind.htm.
Uzun, Levent. (2012). What is your educational philosophy? Modern and postmodern
approaches to foreign language education. Uludag University, Bursa, Turkey.
van Merrienboer, J. J. (2013). Perspectives on problem solving and instruction. Computers and
Education, 64, 153-160.
Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Thomas Shanks, S. J., & Meyer, M. J. (2011). Thinking ethically: A
framework for moral decision making. Retrieved from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/
practicing /decision /thinking.html.
Veselak, K. M. (2018). Teachers’ beliefs about the purpose of education in a high-stakes testing
environment. National Teacher Education Journal, 11(3), 107-120. Retrieved from
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hBrt2dkLLS7z5CuSirLe0ITcjbeGm06k7mBsS2Rt
2z8/edit#.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
276
Vogel-Walcutt, J. J., Gebrim, J. B., Bowers, C., Carper, T. M., & Nicholson, D. (2011).
Cognitive Load Theory vs. constructivist approaches: Which best leads to efficient, deep
learning? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 133-145.
Walton, G. M., & Dweck. C. (2009). Solving social problems like a psychologist. Perspectives
on Psychological Science, 4(10), 101-102.
Weiner, B. (1972). Attribution Theory, achievement motivation, and the educational process.
Review of educational research, 42(2), 203-215.
Wells, M. (2014). Elements of effective and sustainable professional learning. Professional
Development in Education, 40(3), 488-504. https://doi:10.1080/19415257.2013.838691.
Wiggan, G. (2007). Race, school achievement, and educational inequality: Toward a student-
based inquiry perspective. Review of Educational Research, 77(3), 310-333.
Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Chapter 6: Teacher learning and the acquisition of
professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional
development. Review of Research in Education, 24(1), 173-209.
Winne, P. H. (2010). Improving measurements of self-regulated learning. Educational
Psychologist, 45(4), 267-276.
Yeager, D. S., Henderson, M. D., Paunesku, D., Walton, G. M., D’Mello, S., Spitzer, B. J., &
Duckworth, A. L. (2014). Boring but important: A self-transcendent purpose for learning
fosters academic self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(4),
559–580.
Yeager, D. S. & Walton, G. M. (2011). Social-psychological interventions in education: They’re
not magic. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 267-301.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
277
Yough, M., & Anderman, E. (2010). Goal Orientation Theory. Retrieved from
https://reserves.usc. edu/ares/ares.dll?Action=10&Type=10&Value=204669.
Zmuda, A., Ullman, D., & Curtis, G. (2015). Learning personalized: The evolution of the
contemporary classroom. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
278
Appendix A: Recruitment Letter—Focus Group Protocol
August 26, 2020:
Focus Group Recruitment for the Knowledge, Motivation, Organization Element of the Study:
Request to participate in Doctoral Study Educational Resources Learning Focus Group
Subject: Gap Analysis: Transition Age Youth (TAY) Educational Resources for High School
Graduation and College and Career Readiness
Dear CTS DCS member,
For the University of Southern California (USC) Doctorate of Education (EdD) program, I am
conducting research as part of my dissertation study. My research focuses on identifying and
utilizing the necessary services, resources, and educational strategies needed to serve the female
foster-care learner residing at CTS’ STRTP, group home facilities. I am writing to request your
participation in a Focus Group meeting to provide input from your personal and professional
expertise and perspectives to provide evidence for my study. If you volunteer, due to present
social restrictions, the Focus Groups will be done via video-conferencing with a time
commitment of 30-40 minutes. Please know that your participation and input will be protected
through confidentiality of content and anonymous reporting. The session will be recorded in
order to be transcribed at a later date.
If you would like to participate, please download and read the attached Information Sheet.
If you have any questions about the study, please contact the principal investigator, Kenneth M.
Hill, at hillkm@usc.edu or 310-628-7211. You may also contact me at lpicus@rossier.usc.edu.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Lawrence O. Picus, PhD
Professor of Education Finance and Policy
Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Affairs
USC Rossier School of Education
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
279
Appendix B: Focus Group Recruitment
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway, Los Angeles, CA 99089

INFORMATION SHEET FOR EXEMPT RESEARCH

STUDY TITLE: Gap Analysis: Transition Age Youth Educational Resources for High School Graduation and
College and Career Readiness

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Kenneth M. Hill, MEd

FACULTY ADVISOR: Lawrence Picus, PhD
For the University of Southern California (USC) Doctorate of Education (EdD) program, I am conducting research
as part of my dissertation study. My research focuses on identifying and utilizing the necessary services, resources,
and educational strategies needed to serve the female foster-care learner residing at California Transitional Services’
(CTS) STRTP, group home facilities. You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is
voluntary. This document explains information about this study. Please feel free to ask any questions.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to analyze and evaluate knowledge, motivation, and organizational (i.e., KMO) factors
impacting educational, psychological, and social autonomy impeding Transitional Age Youth (TAY) high school
graduation rates and college and career readiness. My research focuses on identifying and utilizing the necessary
services, resources, and educational strategies for this specific foster care youth population to achieve sustainable,
long-term independence.

An outcome of this study is a tangible, scripted protocol of required resources to promote high school graduation
rates and support services for viable independence beyond STRTP residency. You are invited as a possible
participant because of your employment status and job responsibilities serving the female foster care learners
residing at CTS’ STRTP, group home facilities.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
I am writing to request your participation in a Focus Group meeting to provide input from your personal and
professional expertise and perspectives to provide evidence for my study. Due to present social restrictions, the
Focus Groups will be done via video-conferencing with a time commitment of 30-40 minutes. Your expertise,
personal, and professional perspective will provide valuable input to better serve the specific female foster-care
learner at CTS’ residential STRTP, group homes facilities.

I have prepared pre-formatted questions to maximize our time and achieve the most profitable input. I will read
each question and, after there has been enough conversation, will move to the next question. We will not exceed the
allotted time limit of 40 minutes. The session is recorded so that it can be transcribed later for research purposes.
Additionally, the video-conferencing recording will only be used for this research. Lastly, responding to any
question is entirely optional.

Please know that your participation and input will be protected through confidentiality of content and anonymous
reporting. The session will be recorded in order to be transcribed at a later date. Your participation in the Focus
Group is completely voluntary and information collected is solely for the dissertation process.
Version Date: August 10, 2020 Page 1 of 2 USC
IRB Information Sheet Template Version Date: 07/27/2019
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
280
Appendix B (contd):
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway, Los Angeles, CA 99089
Video-audio recording will be utilized during the Focus Group portion to accurately and comprehensively capture
context and content. You may choose to decline recording at any point during the Focus Group meeting and you
may stop your Focus Group participation at any time.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be compensated for your participation.
CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team, and the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) may
access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable information will be used.
Various provisions will be implemented in order to keep information confidential. Research procedures of survey
and interview participation will be conducted in a private setting. The data will be captured and reviewed by the
principal investigator in a private setting. The collection of participant information will be limited to the amount
necessary to meet the objectives of the research. Participations will also not be approached in a setting that may
result in a breach of privacy. Data and participants will be classified and organized by code or pseudonym. When
data analysis has been completed, the recording of the interview will be erased or deleted.
Only audio recording of the interviews will take place. Participants may review the audio recording and associated
transcripts upon request. Only the principal investigator and faculty advisor will have access to the recordings. Once
audio recordings are fully transcribed and analyzed, they will be destroyed.
At the conclusion of the study, written research data will be retained for study record keeping purposes per
institutional policy.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Kenneth M. Hill at hillkm@usc.edu and/or 310-628-7211.
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the University of Southern
California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email irb@usc.edu.
Sincerely,

Kenneth M. Hill
Version Date: August 10, 2020 Page 2 of 2 USC IRB
Information Sheet Template Version Date: 07/27/2019
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
281
Appendix C:
Facilitator Focus Group Protocol
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this Focus Group discussion. Your expertise, personal,
and professional perspective will provide valuable input to better serve the specific female
foster-care learner at CTS’ residential STRTP, group homes facilities. My research focuses on
identifying and utilizing the necessary services, resources, and educational strategies for this
specific foster care youth population to achieve sustainable, long-term independence.
I have prepared pre-formatted questions to maximize our time and achieve the most
profitable input. I will read each question and, after there has been enough conversation, will
move to the next question. We will not exceed the allotted time limit of 40 minutes. The session
is recorded so that it can be transcribed later for research purposes. Please know that your
valuable input and perspectives will be kept confidential and reported anonymously.
Additionally, the video-conferencing recording will only be used for this research. Lastly,
responding to any question is entirely optional. If you have any questions about the study, please
contact the me, the principal investigator, at hillkm@usc.edu or 310-628-7211. You may also
contact my Dissertation Chair, Lawrence O. Picus, PhD at lpicus@rossier.usc.edu.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,

Kenneth M. Hill

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
282
Appendix D:
Facilitator Focus Group Protocol Guide
Focus Group Script:
(K: DPM) Question 1: What experience or training do you have related to how a learner learns?
(i.e., cognitive science, types of knowledge, and learning barriers).
(K: DPM) Question 2: As practitioners, what experience or training have you received in
practicing and using teaching strategies? (i.e., pedagogical instructional strategies, designs, and
formative/summative assessments).
(K:DPM) Question 3: How often are you challenged with educational content (e.g., literary
terms, CAASP requirements, cognitive taxonomy, persona, and synthetic analysis) that might
limit your ability to help guide and instruct the learner?
(K:DPM) Question 4: What strategies or tools do you use to help monitor and keep the learner
accountable and encouraged for educational growth? (i.e., quantitative and qualitatively
measurements: data collection methodology).
(K:DPM) Question 5: What strategies do you use to adjust your personalized instruction or
involvement with different types of personalities, learning styles, and/or educational goals? (i.e.,
differentiated approaches to promote performance and mastery goal values).
(K:DPM) Question 6: How often do you have the time and the ability to collaborate with other
colleagues concerning effective strategies to help the learner? (i.e., effective TAY modeling).
(K:DPM) Question 7: What personal and professional strategies are used to identify and reflect
on what learning strategies work or do not work for the learner? (i.e., effective TAY modeling,
evaluation of strengths and challenges).

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
283
Appendix D (contd.):
(K:DPM) Question 8: What strategies are used to define and help encourage personal and
professional goals, interests, and motivations in your work environment affecting the learner?
(i.e., metacognitive schema for attributions and contingencies).
(K:DPM) Question 9: What strategies do you use for self-regulation to accomplish your diverse
job requirements? (i.e., self-regulation, schema-development for TAY transfer).
(K:DPM) Question 10: What training and strategies do you use to avoid frustration and
encourage the learner? (i.e., redundancy, learning attrition, and mental fatigue for effective TAY
modeling).
(M) Question 11: How much input or choice do you have in selecting the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of
how best to serve the educational needs of the learner?
(M) Question 12: What is the single most important factor that motivates you to perform your
job responsibilities?
(M) Question 13: What are the major social, cultural, and/or emotional barriers impacting the
learner (i.e., socio-cultural and emotional attributions and contingencies).
(M) Question 14: What is the single most important factor that frustrates you or impedes you to
perform your job responsibilities?
(M) Question 15: How do you remain confident that your strategies are truly helping the learner?
(i.e., self-confident to strategically integrate personalized schema for achievement and TAY
modeling transfer).
(O) Question 16: Are you given a clear educational goal and do you feel the necessary resources
are available? (i.e., CTS’ professional learning and instructional approach and fidelity of
resources).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
284
Appendix D (contd):
(O) Question 17: Are your policies and procedures clear and relevant to the learner?
(O) Question 18: If applicable, has previous in-service training or professional development been
supportive of pre-existing mission goals/visions?
(O) Question 19: Do you feel that your local goals are in alignment with the CTS’ larger
objectives? (i.e., cohesiveness in collaboration, cross-disciplinary content alignment, and
accountable TAY performance and mastery attainment).
(O) Question 20: Are there personal and professional incentives offered by CTS? (i.e. tangible
and intangible incentivization for employment retention and cultural sustainment).
(O) Question 21: How do you receive feedback from CTS related to job responsibilities and is it
effective to help the learner? (i.e., collaboration and effective, timely feedback affecting the
fluidity of the program).
(O) Question 22: Are there strategies CTS uses to promote motivation, confidence, and self-
efficacy among the DCS? (i.e., validate the instruction for intrinsic value of the adopted
campaign).
Time Remaining: Is there anything else you would like to share relevant to your job description
influencing the needs and resources of the learner?
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
285
Appendix E: Administrative Protocol
Interview Letter
Request to participate in Doctoral Study Educational Resources Administrative Interview
Dear ___ (administrator)
As part of my doctoral dissertation work at the University of Southern California (USC), I am
conducting research as part of my dissertation study. My research focuses on identifying and
utilizing the necessary services, resources, and educational strategies needed to serve the female
foster-care learner residing at CTS’ STRTP, group home facilities. I am writing to request your
participation in an Administrative Interview to provide input from your personal and professional
expertise and perspective to provide evidence for my study. Due to present social restrictions, the
interview will be done via video-conferencing with a time commitment of 30 minutes. Please
know that your participation and input will be protected through confidentiality of content and
anonymous reporting. The session will be recorded and transcribed at a later date.
If you would like to participate, please download and read the attached Information
Sheet. I greatly appreciate your professional time and consideration. I would like to set up a time
to have a conversation with you to learn from your expertise and to gain your perspective.
If you have any questions about the study, please contact the me, the principal investigator, at
hillkm@usc.edu or 310-628-7211. You may also contact my Dissertation Chair, Lawrence O.
Picus, PhD at lpicus@rossier.usc.edu.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,

Kenneth M. Hill
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
286
Appendix F: Interview Recruitment
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway, Los Angeles, CA 99089

INFORMATION SHEET FOR EXEMPT RESEARCH

STUDY TITLE: Gap Analysis: Transition Age Youth Educational Resources for High School Graduation and
College and Career Readiness

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Kenneth M. Hill, MEd

FACULTY ADVISOR: Lawrence Picus, PhD
For the University of Southern California (USC) Doctorate of Education (EdD) program, I am conducting research
as part of my dissertation study. My research focuses on identifying and utilizing the necessary services, resources,
and educational strategies needed to serve the female foster-care learner residing at California Transitional Services’
(CTS) STRTP, group home facilities. You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is
voluntary. This document explains information about this study. Please feel free to ask any questions.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to analyze and evaluate knowledge, motivation, and organizational (i.e., KMO) factors
impacting educational, psychological, and social autonomy impeding Transitional Age Youth (TAY) high school
graduation rates and college and career readiness. My research focuses on identifying and utilizing the necessary
services, resources, and educational strategies for this specific foster care youth population to achieve sustainable,
long-term independence.

An outcome of this study is a tangible, scripted protocol of required resources to promote high school graduation
rates and support services for viable independence beyond STRTP residency. You are invited as a possible
participant because of your employment status and job responsibilities serving the female foster care learners
residing at CTS’ STRTP, group home facilities.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
I am writing to request your participation in an Administrative Interview to provide input from your personal and
professional expertise and perspectives to provide evidence for my study. Due to present social restrictions, the
Administrative Interview will be done via video-conferencing with a time commitment of 30 minutes. Your
expertise, personal, and professional perspective will provide valuable input to better serve the specific female
foster-care learner at CTS’ residential STRTP, group homes facilities.

I have prepared pre-formatted questions to maximize our time and achieve the most profitable input. I will read
each question and, after there has been enough conversation, will move to the next question. We will not exceed the
allotted time limit of 30 minutes. The session is recorded so that it can be transcribed later for research purposes.
Additionally, the video-conferencing recording will only be used for this research. Lastly, responding to any
question is entirely optional.

Please know that your participation and input will be protected through confidentiality of content and anonymous
reporting. The session will be recorded in order to be transcribed at a later date. Your participation in the
Administrative Interview is completely voluntary and information collected is solely for the dissertation process.
Version Date: August 10, 2020 Page 1 of 2 USC
IRB Information Sheet Template Version Date: 07/27/2019
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
287
Appendix F (contd):
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway, Los Angeles, CA 99089
Video-audio recording will be utilized during the Administrative Interview portion to accurately and
comprehensively capture context and content. You may choose to decline recording at any point during the
Administrative Interview and you may stop your Administrative Interview participation at any time.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be compensated for your participation.
CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team, and the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) may
access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable information will be used.
Various provisions will be implemented in order to keep information confidential. Research procedures of survey
and interview participation will be conducted in a private setting. The data will be captured and reviewed by the
principal investigator in a private setting. The collection of participant information will be limited to the amount
necessary to meet the objectives of the research. Participations will also not be approached in a setting that may
result in a breach of privacy. Data and participants will be classified and organized by code or pseudonym. When
data analysis has been completed, the recording of the interview will be erased or deleted.
Only audio recording of the interviews will take place. Participants may review the audio recording and associated
transcripts upon request. Only the principal investigator and faculty advisor will have access to the recordings. Once
audio recordings are fully transcribed and analyzed, they will be destroyed.
At the conclusion of the study, written research data will be retained for study record keeping purposes per
institutional policy.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Kenneth M. Hill at hillkm@usc.edu and/or 310-628-7211.
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the University of Southern
California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email irb@usc.edu.
Sincerely,

Kenneth M. Hill

Version Date: August 10, 2020 Page 2 of 2 USC IRB
Information Sheet Template Version Date: 07/27/2019
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
288
Appendix G:
Facilitator Interview Protocol Guide
Interview Script:
(O) Question 1: With the DCS under your supervision, how and how often do you give
performance feedback? What methodology and evidence are used to provide effective and
productive critique?
(O) Question 2: What tools or strategies do you use to provide clarity and promote value of CTS’
organizational goals? Is there a direct correlation between clarity of goals and impact on work
culture or climate?
(O) Question 3: Does the DCS have any choice or input on instructional decisions impacting the
learner?
(O) Question 4: What incentives does CTS offer to promote learning and positively impact the
work environment?
(O) Question 5: Does the DCS employee have opportunities to clarify and reflect on job
performance related to CTS’ organizational objectives?
(O) Question 6: How do you help the DCS maintain motivation and promote learning related to
the learner?
(O) Question 7: If applicable, how often and when was the last time a formal professional
development was offered for the DCS employee?
(O) Question 8: What is the most motivating or exciting component of your job description?
(O) Question 9: What is the greatest barrier impacting the DCS’s ability to serve the needs of the
learner?

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
289
Appendix G (contd):
(O) Question 10: How do you clarify a clear educational goal and do you feel the necessary
resources are available to the DCS to service the learner? (i.e., CTS’ professional learning and
instructional approach and fidelity of resources).
(O) Question 11: Are your policies and procedures clear and relevant for the DCS employee and
relevant to the learner?
(O) Question 12: Are there strategies CTS uses to promote motivation, confidence, and self-
efficacy among the DCS employee? (i.e., validate the instruction for intrinsic value of the
adopted campaign).
Time Remaining: Is there anything else you would like to share relevant to your job description
influencing the needs and resources of the DCS employee servicing the learner?

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
290
Appendix H:
NSRF Protocols
Appendix E-1. NSRF Inquiry Circles Protocol

Bisplinghof, B. (n.d.). Inquiry Circles: A Protocol for Professional Inquiry. Retrieved April 28, 2018, from
https://www.nsrfharmony.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/inquiry_circles.pdf
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
291
H-2: NSRF Data Analysis Protocol

Data Analysis. (n.d.). Retrieved April 28, 2018, from https://www.nsrfharmony.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/DataAnalysis.pdf
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
292
H-3: NSRF Considering Evidence Protocol

Project Zero. (n.d.). Considering Evidence. Retrieved April 28, 2018, from https://www.nsrfharmony.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/10/considering_evidence_0.pdf
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
293
H-4: NSRF Change in Practice Protocol

Thompson-Grove, G. (n.d.). A Change In Practice. Retrieved April 28, 2018, from https://www.nsrfharmony.org/
wp-content/uploads/2017/10/change_practice_0.pdf
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
294
H-5: NSRF ATLAS Looking at Data

Leahy, D. (n.d.). ATLAS Looking at Data. Retrieved April 28, 2018, from https://www.nsrfharmony.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/10/atlas_looking_data_0.pdf

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
295
H-6: NSRF Connect to Work and Share Feedback Protocol

Thompson-Grove, G. (n.d.). What? Now what? So what? Retrieved April 28, 2018, from
https://www.nsrfharmony.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/what_so_what_0.pdf
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
296
Appendix I:
Standards for Professional Learning

Source: Learning Forward. Retrieved from https://learningforward.org/standards/

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
297
Appendix J:
MCESA Inquiry-Based Teaching Strategies

MCESA. (n.d.). Inquiry Based Teaching Strategies. Retrieved April 28, 2018, from
https://bloomboard.com/microcredential/view/028e5080-f84b-47ad-9ade-d955dbddb7a3

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
298
Appendix K:
Guskey’s Five Levels and Categorical Questions

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
299
Appendix L:
Micro-Credential Orientation Evaluation Instrument.
Guskey’s (2000) variant of the Kirkpatrick (1996) model: Here’s what it might look like:
1. Participation and selection: Who is choosing what micro-credential?
o How did the designers arrive at the set of micro-credentials? Did they conduct a needs analysis?
o Did the participant self-select into the program? If not, how was the participant connected to a
specific micro-credential?
2. Participant Reactions: Did the participant find the professional learning useful, informative, and engaging?
3. Participant Knowledge: What did the participant hope to learn?
o What did the participant learn?
o What is the connection between what the participant hoped to learn, the learning objectives of the
micro-credential, what the participant actually learned, and what the participant applies on the job?
4. Organizational Support and Change
o What effect has the professional learning had on the school environment?
o What barriers prevent participants from using what they have learned?
o What affordances of the environment promote use?
5. Participant Actions: How does the micro-credential affect practice?
o How does the participant intend to use what they learn in the micro-credential?
o What action does the participant actually take as a result of the micro-credential?
6. Student Success:
o Before taking the Micro-Credential: What affect will the micro-credential have on students? That
is, how will students be different as a result of this micro-credential?
o During the Micro-Credential: How has the teacher changed his/her perspective of the effect of the
micro-credential on students? That is, now that the teacher is taking the micro-credential, how has
his/her thinking changed in regards to the effect it will have on students?
o After the Micro-Credential: What effect has the micro-credential actually had on students? Can
we draw theoretical and ultimately causal connections between the micro-credential and student
success?
o https://thefindingsgroup.org/2017/05/02/evaluating-micro-credentialing/
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Guskey-and-Sparks-1996-model-of-the-relationship-between-professional-
development-and_fig1_229439461

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
300
Appendix M:
IRB and Dissertation Presentation

SLIDE 1

Good afternoon, esteemed colleagues. Thank you for your willingness to be on my dissertation
proposal committee. My name is Kenneth Hill, and I will be presenting my dissertation entitled
“GAP ANALYSIS: TRANSITION AGE YOUTH EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES FOR HIGH
SCHOOL GRADUATION AND COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS.”

Education is inseparable from the inherent directive of leading to and protection of truth.
It is imperative to protect and celebrate “the dignity, the moral right of man to life, its
development and cultivation.”

The following presentation will address the salient ethical responsibility in maximizing
Transitional Age Youth or TAY resources to improve high school graduation rates and college
and career readiness for profitable independence for females living in short-term, group home
facilities.

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
301

Appendix M-2:
IRB and Dissertation Presentation

SLIDE 2
Chapters 1 thru 3 Outline
Here is a visual look at chapters 1-3 to navigate the following Transitional Age Youth (TAY)
knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) Findings and Solutions concerning resources
and services influencing TAY graduation rates and college readiness.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
302
Appendix M-3:
IRB and Dissertation Presentation

SLIDE 3

Statement of the Problem highlights the developmental Timeline impacting Foster Care
TAY resources

In 1986, federal child welfare programs of the Social Security Act added section 477, an
Independent Living Initiative, aiding the adjustment from foster care to independence for TAY
between the ages 13-19.
In 1999, federal assistance was offered to develop specific TAY opportunities in “education,
employment, financial management, housing, emotional support, and assured connections.”
In 2002, the Educational and Training Vouchers Program for TAY drew more participants as
beneficiaries of federal aid sponsoring educational initiatives.
In 2008 the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act was passed
extending TAY foster care services to age 21.
In 2010, California adopted Assembly Bill 12, extending TAY foster care to 21 while
contingent on specific criteria.
In 2017, TAY represented 29.6% of all children leaving California’s Foster Care system.
From this number, 13% TAY reported low-rates of high school or GED completion. In fact, the
California Department of Education reported deficiencies in every category compared to non-foster
youth: For example, 16% more absences; 12% more suspensions; and 29% less in graduation rates.
Consequently, TAY are transitioning into emancipated life without sustainable academic and social
skills, educational qualifications, and communal resources for sustainable autonomy.

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
303
Appendix M-4:
IRB and Dissertation Presentation

SLIDE 4

The Importance of the Study synthesizes relevant data impacting the TAY population

The First Graph provides a holistic Foster Care Perspective: In 2019, of the 688,00 children receiving
social services nationwide, 250,000 exited the US foster care system. California’s 52,00 is the largest in
the US with 29,000 children withdrawing from the system due to reconciliation, adoption, guardianships,
or emancipation.

The Second Graph reports relevant TAY Social Cultural and Emotional: Ramifications: According
to research, Independent TAY are statistically more likely to experience unemployment, poverty, criminal
activity, and depression. Specifically, Foster Care youth data report a 56% graduation rate, 48% Post-
Secondary Education, 20% homelessness, 70% criminal activity, and 50% identified as Commercial Sex
Exploitation of Children or abbreviated as CSEC with 90% coming from short-term, group home
facilities: this study’s targeted population. Consequently, TAY are vulnerable to criminal activity to gain
stability and consistency regarding food, shelter, clothing, family, safety, acceptance, and approval.
The Third Graph compares Youth pregnancy of foster youth to non-foster peers:
According to research between the ages of 17-18, Foster youth are 19% more likely to get pregnant than
non-foster youth, at age 19, 31%, ages 23-24, 37%, and repeat pregnancies, 12 %.
As the data indicate, it is a moral imperative to address viable and accessible TAY resources to
promote a continuum of physiological needs, safety and security, love and belongingness, self-esteem,
and self-actualization.

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
304
Appendix M-5:
IRB and Dissertation Presentation

SLIDE 5

Purpose of the Study, Illustrates a cohesive and progressive vision to address
deficiencies impacting graduation rates and college and career skills among female TAY
living in short-term, group home facilities operated by the alias California Transitional
Services or abbreviated CTS located in Southern California.

Step 1, CTS’ Direct Care Staff (DCS) stakeholder was selected with daily and consistent
access to the TAY learner for Instructional modeling and support.

Step 2, Methodology, is centered on an analysis of assumed Knowledge, Motivation, and
Organization or KMO “gaps.”

Step 3 targets Expert to Novice KMO transfer from the DCS Stakeholder to the TAY
learner, improving High School Graduation Rates for College and Career Readiness.

Step 4 focuses on TAY graduation and post-secondary plans progressing toward self-
sufficiency.

And Step 5 is centered on tangible realization of TAY viable educational, psychological,
and social autonomy.

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
305
Appendix M-6:
IRB and Dissertation Presentation

SLIDE 6

Three interdependent research questions framed the scope and sequence of this
study relevant to KMO assumptions

Does CTS’ DCS have the knowledge, motivation & organizational goal values to serve
and resource the needs of the TAY learner?

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
306
Appendix M-7:
IRB and Dissertation Presentation

SLIDE 7

Literature Review is a categorical matrix of related KMO Research. Some of the
larger categories include

1. TAY Autonomy
2. Personalized and Professional learning Instructional Design
3. Declarative, Procedural, and Metacognitive Knowledge Factors
4. Motivation and Organization Factors

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
307
Appendix M-8:
IRB and Dissertation Presentation

SLIDE 8

Assumed Influences are directed and designed from the Literature Review findings

The following examples are an abbreviated list:

Declarative Knowledge Assumptions include:

• Cognitive Science
• Pedagogy
• Curriculum Content

Procedural Knowledge Assumptions:

• Content Differentiation
• Effective TAY Modeling
• Evaluative Methodology
Metacognitive Knowledge Assumptions:

• Cognitive Taxonomy
• Self-regulation
• Schema Identification

Motivational Assumptions:

• Choice, Effort, & Persistence
• Socio-cultural Attributions
• Self-confidence
• Goal Orientations
And Organizational Assumptions:
• Instructional Design
• Stakeholder Collaboration
• Evaluation Accountability

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
308
Appendix M-9:
IRB and Dissertation Presentation

SLIDE 9

Sample Population identifies CTS’ DCS as the selected stakeholder due to the close and
consistent proximity to the TAY learner.

The DCS stakeholder is strategically selected as a purposive sample with random Focus Group
assignment in a convenience setting defined by three criteria:

• tenure; experience; certification

Regarding Recruitment

The purposive selection of CTS’ DCS stakeholder will be contacted through email or
direct managerial invitation.

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
309
Appendix M-10:
IRB and Dissertation Presentation

SLIDE 10

Data Collection will utilize 3 Focus Groups of 5 members; 4 administrative Interviews; and
varied document analysis resources.

The focus group and interviews will be delivered via video-conferencing and will be recorded to
capture content and context. Approximately 40 minutes will be allotted to conduct each Focus
Group and 30 minutes for each administrative interview.

For the Focus Group Protocol, the stakeholder is selected as a purposive sample in a
convenience setting with random assignment.

For the Interview protocol, 4 administrators will be selected for the interview that will
exercise open-ended questioning.

Document Analysis will utilize artifacts, public and personal records.

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
310
Appendix M-11:
IRB and Dissertation Presentation

SLIDE 11

The proposed Timeline for Dissertation Completion is as follows

IRB Approval by September 2020; Data Collection in November 2020; Data Collection
completed by February 2021; transcription of data and analysis of findings in March 2021;
Complete, tabulate, and present results, findings, and solutions * Defend Dissertation in April
2021.

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
311
Appendix M-12:
IRB and Dissertation Presentation

SLIDE 12
Good morning! Thank you for your willingness to be on my dissertation defense committee. My
name is Kenneth Hill, and I will be defending my dissertation entitled “GAP ANALYSIS:
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH or TAY EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES FOR HIGH SCHOOL
GRADUATION AND COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS.”

The following presentation will address TAY resources and services to improve high school
graduation rates and college and career readiness for females living in short-term, residential
therapeutic group homes known as STRTP’s.

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
312
Appendix M-13:
IRB and Dissertation Presentation

SLIDE 13
Chapters 4 and 5 Outline
Here is a visual look at chapters 4 and 5 to navigate the following TAY knowledge, motivation,
and organizational or KMO Findings and Solutions.

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
313
Appendix M-14:
IRB and Dissertation Presentation

SLIDE 14
Chapter 4 analyzes KMO Knowledge data investigating Declarative, Procedural, and
Metacognitive assumptions and validated causes.

Declarative Knowledge data were identified measuring
• Declarative Content
• Cognitive Science
• Cross-disciplinary Applications and
• Direct Care Staff or DCS & TAY Alignment Accountability

Declarative Knowledge Validations were determined to be Not Validated as No, Validated as
Yes, or a combination labeled as Partially. The following areas were identified as follows:
• Cognitive Science = Yes. This subcategory addressed the relative importance of
California Transitional Services or CTS to integrate cognitive scientific content and
declarative knowledge strategies.
• Pedagogical Instruction = Partially. This subcategory reinforced CTS’ commitment to
integrate, practice, and refine data-driven teaching and learning strategies for DCS
modeling and TAY transfer.
• Assessment Tools = Partially. This subcategory identified CTS’ present accountability
assessments with continued DCS integration.
• Content Descriptors = Partially. This subcategory delineated from specific cognitive and
pedagogical theory and declarative semantics impacting methodology.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
314
Appendix M-15:
IRB and Dissertation Presentation

SLIDE 15
Procedural Knowledge data were identified measuring
• Evaluation, Feedback and
• Content Value

These categories were combined into subcategories to report Procedural Validations with a No,
Yes, or Partially.
• Differentiated Strategies = Partially. Findings addressed CTS’ need to provide
differentiated, choice-driven instructional strategies.
• Academic TAY Modeling = Partially. This subcategory focused on CTS’ increased
modeling efforts to support DCS’ influence affecting TAY ownership.
• Evaluative Methodology = Yes. CTS data indicate a need for continuity and cohesion for
adopted evaluative tools.
• Instrumentation = Yes. This subcategory emphasized CTS’s need to consistently adopt
and support internal reliability threats.
• Collaborative Strategies = Partially. Findings indicated a need for increased CTS
collaborative efforts.

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
315
Appendix M-16:
IRB and Dissertation Presentation

SLIDE 16
Metacognitive Knowledge data were identified measuring
• Personal Reflection Schema
• Collaborative Feedback Modeling and
• Goal Orientations Development

The following Metcognitive Knowledge Validation subcategories are identified as No, Yes, or
Partially.
• Reflection and Feedback = Yes. Data suggested increased personal reflection practice for
collaborative evaluation in a consistent, regulatory manner with integrated opportunity to
revise and affect practice.
• Schema Development = Yes. DCS responsibilities did not indicate isolated time to
develop personalized schema to address metacognitive barriers.
• Cognitive Attrition = Yes. As stated, cognitive restructuring for attainability and utility is
an identified CTS need related to cognitive load factors.
• Self-regulation = Partially. Data indicate a continued accountability to develop explicit
metacognitive schema.
• Progress Monitoring = Partially. CTS’ individual and organizational measures require
greater consistency, cohesion, and alignment to identified objectives.

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
316
Appendix M-17:
IRB and Dissertation Presentation

SLIDE 17
Chapter 4, Motivational Factors were independently assumed and validated with application to
knowledge variables and organizational responsibilities.

Motivational data were identified measuring
• DCS Stakeholder Ownership
• Identified Learning Modalities and
• Collaborative Practices

The following Motivational Validation subcategories are identified as No, Yes, or Partially.
• Choice Selection = Yes. Findings indicated a need to promote stakeholder input to drive
content and delivery.
• Goal Values = Yes. CTS reported a need to cultivate stakeholder orientations that impact
TAY modeling and transfer.
• Attributions = Partially. Findings suggest a need for a more extensive effort to integrate
awareness of socio-cultural and emotional factors central to the STRTP context.
• Confidence & Efficacy = Partially. Integration and alignment of instructional strategies
grounded in Social Cognitive practices will complement the existing CTS
instrumentation.
• Culture and Climate = Partially. The STRTP facilities rely on cultivating and maintaining
a collectivity of responsibility and achievement manifested in the living and learning
environment.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
317
Appendix M-18:
IRB and Dissertation Presentation

SLIDE 18
Ending Chapter 4, Organizational Factors were independently assumed and validated with
application to knowledge and motivational variables.
Organizational data were identified measuring
• Document Analysis
• Motivational Measures
• Climate & Culture
• Collaboration and
• Engagement

The following Organizational Validation subcategories are identified as No, Yes, or Partially.
• Fidelity of Resources = Partially. Data indicated a need for transparency and accessibility
of organizationally sponsored resources. Findings suggested that stakeholders were
disconnected from the adoption and integration process.
• Accountability = Partially. Data indicated a need for a unilateral accountability that
focuses on achieving related mission objectives with less emphasis on punitive measures.
• Alignment & Cohesion = Yes. Stakeholders indicated a disconnect between micro and
macro objectives from organizational authorship.
• Incentivization = Partially. The data indicated an increased use of incentivization that
encompasses varied goal orientations.
• Feedback & Reflection = Partially. CTS data indicate a need to improve the frequency
and long-term use of feedback and reflection strategies. This subcategory delineated
between individual and collaborative evaluation processes.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
318
Appendix M-19:
IRB and Dissertation Presentation

SLIDE 19
Chapter 5, addresses KMO Solutions, Organizational Solutions, Implementation Strategies, and
Evaluation Plans based on Chapter Four’s data.

KMO Solutions focused on addressing deficiencies directly related to KMO validations. The
data guided solutions regarding the following categories:
• Evaluation & Feedback aid in capturing full observational contexts, cataloging qualitative
analysis, interpreting findings framed by worldview, and posing relevant questions.
• Defining Goals & Fidelity of Resources: CTS’ vision requires clarity and viable support. The lack
of “a defining goal” compounded with a hasty timeline and inaccessible ancillary resources are
detrimental to the viability of a professional learning design.
• Anthropological Investigations & Microaggressions reinforce CTS’ observational integrity with
consideration of socio-cultural and emotional variables impacting the living and learning context.
• Differentiated Choice, Persistence, & Mental Effort: are part of the anthropological observation
and integral to CTS’ instructional design and training, accommodating varied learning factors and
personalizing professional training to be sustainable, efficient, and inspirational.
• Professional Networking & Network Selection Attributes: Networking is a “channel” for
uncovering deficiencies and recruiting the most effective colleagues to provide solutions. CTS’
current personal and professional learning selection processes require greater networking
opportunities to access collegial collaboration and data-driven integration results in chosen
content with high-interest.

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
319
Appendix M-20:
IRB and Dissertation Presentation

SLIDE 20
Organizational Solutions data guided accommodations of the following categories:

• Organizational Setting: CTS administrators could integrate professional learning
opportunities that lead to a sustainable instructional design. Organizational cultural
barriers can be mitigated, reducing pessimistic feedback.
• Collaborative Solutions: CTS would benefit from utilizing in-house personnel and
external consultants to improve culture or climate concerns while guarding against
cognitive biases and social conformity influences.
• Assessment Tools: Collaborative opportunities require objective filtering to ensure the
integrity and accountability of CTS’ dedicated professional learning.
• Feedback & Reflection: CTS’ adoption of a collaborative feedback protocol strengthens
progressive and differentiated learning opportunities, an accountability of data-driven
instructional strategies based on KMO barriers.
• Quasi-administrative Leadership: CTS’ personnel offer an underdeveloped resource to
utilize collaborative strengths while building leadership within the pre-existing
organizational framework.

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
320
Appendix M-21:
IRB and Dissertation Presentation

SLIDE 21
Implementation Strategies focused on integration and monitoring methodology:
• Organizational Integrated Resources: The fidelity of resources should dictate how CTS’
personnel are incorporated into collaborative and leadership opportunities. If the deployment of
opportunities is organizationally installed, it is pertinent to create extra facilitation to
communicate arrangement and value.
• Expert to Novice Ratio: Cognitive attrition affecting expert to novice transfer is applicable to the
number of learners engaged in content or skill transfer.
• Collaborative Coaching; Collegiality; Collaborative Contracts: CTS’ targeting of micro-
credentialed experts with small-group, teacher-learner ratios will employ “pod” learning modules
with designed rotation for application and evaluative improvement. Authentically building
relationships with the fidelity of resources is paramount to collaborative or co-teaching
assignments.
• Micro-credential Integration: CTS should consider maximizing access and delivery of micro-
credentialing modules for choice, effort, and persistence value. The intent of segmented
competencies is to minimize cognitive load and maximize the CTA transfer for automaticity.
• Instrumentation and Methodology: Accountability measures guide living and learning instruction
from data-driven strategies. In a collaborative, each stakeholder will benefit from individual
reflective practices that can be funneled into the larger professional design.
• Goal Targeting: CTS’ accountability should consider performance and mastery goals applicable
to the length or time needed to attain objectives pertinent to stakeholder groups.
• Culture/Climate Efficacy: CTS must be highly cognizant to promote goal-driven uniformity
among relevant personnel, communicating the legitimacy of and commitments to STRTP
resources and services.
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
321
Appendix M-22:
IRB and Dissertation Presentation

SLIDE 22
Lastly, Evaluative Plans were filtered through the use of the New World Kirkpatrick Model or
NWKM for Evaluation:

Level 4 ~ Results, Leading Indicators, and Desired Outcomes: Level 4 observations and findings
correlate in an encyclical paradigm that filters KMO factors of non-organizational findings via a
managerial lens.

Level 3 ~ Behaviors: Level 3 is used to monitor, reinforce, reward, and encourage stakeholders
to achieve temporal goals with long-term value. Level 3 and 4 outcomes, metrics, methods, and
timings are disaggregated in Table 16 & 17.

Level 2 ~ Learning Goals: Level 2 will introduce refined clarity to selective and procedural
processes for collaborative and micro-credentialing modules.

Finally, Level 1~ Reaction: Level 1 of the NWKM functions as the foundational component of
professional learning by addressing a filtered “post-reaction” applied to “engagement,”
“relevance,” and “customer satisfaction” as understood through validated KMO barriers
indicated in Table 21 & 22.

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
322
Appendix M-23:
IRB and Dissertation Presentation

SLIDE 23
Slide 23 and 24 provide a visual summary of Chapter 4’s Findings and Results and Chapter 5’s
Solutions, Implementations, and Evaluations.

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
323

Appendix M-24:
IRB and Dissertation Presentation

SLIDE 24

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
324
Appendix M-25:
IRB and Dissertation Presentation

SLIDE 25
Once again, thank you for your personal and professional commitments to serve on my
dissertation committee.

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
325
Appendix N:
Definition of Terms
Administrative Interview (AI) (A1-4): Abbreviations used for Administrative participants in
Chapters 3-5.
Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS): Collects case-level
information from state and tribal title IV-E agencies on all children in foster care and those who
have been adopted with title IV-E agency involvement (AFCARS, 2019).
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC): Federal assistance program in effect from
1935 to 1997 created by the Social Security Act and administered by the United States
Department of Health and Human Services that provided financial assistance to children whose
families had low or no income (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2020).
Assembly Bill 12 (AB 12): In 2010, California adopted P.L. 110-351 extending TAY foster care
to 21 while contingent on specific criteria qualifications: pursuit of a high school or general
education diploma (GED); half-time enrollment in college or vocational education; 80 hours per
month of paid employment; employment programs; or verified medical classification (California
Department of Social Services, 2020).
California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP): The Standardized
Testing and Reporting Program measures performance of students undergoing primary and
secondary education in California. It was replaced in late 2013-early 2014 with the California
Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, also known as the Measurement of Academic
Performance and Progress (CDE, 2020).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
326
California Department of Education (CDE): An agency within the Government of California
that oversees public education. The department oversees funding and testing, and holds local
educational agencies accountable for student achievement (CDE, 2020).
California Department of Social Services (CDSS): A California state agency for many of the
programs defined as part of the social safety net in the United States, and is within the auspices
of the California Health and Human Services Agency (CDSS, 2020).
California Department of Social Services Short-term Residential Therapeutic Program
(CDSS: STRTP): A residential facility licensed and operated by a public agency or private
organization that provides short-term, specialized, and intensive therapeutic and 24-hour care
and supervision to children (CDSS: STRTP, 2020). See STRTP.
California Legislative Information Digest (CLID): A brief summary of the changes the
proposed bill would make to current law. It is prepared by the attorney for the Legislature and his
or her staff. The digest is found at the beginning of each bill and its chaptered version. It is also
printed in the Summary Digest (CLID, 2019).
California Transitional Services (CTS): An organization that provides various therapeutic
foster care resources (e.g., trauma counseling, group therapy, psychological rehabilitation,
educational training, life skill lessons, and transitional education accountability) for individuals
of all ages seeking assistance in living autonomous, productive, and prosperous lives (CTS,
2020).
California Youth Connections (CYC): A program that builds foster youth's leadership and
advocacy skills to improve California's foster care system by promoting opportunities for foster
youth to speak with policymakers and engaging youth in policy development (CYC, 2020).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
327
Charleston County School District (CCSD): A school district within Charleston County, South
Carolina, United States. It educates roughly 50,000 kindergarten to 12th grade students in 80
schools (CCSD, 2016).
Cognitive Load Theory (CLT): Based on a number of widely accepted theories about how
human brains process and store information (Gerjets, Scheiter & Cierniak 2009, p. 44). These
assumptions include: that human memory can be divided into working memory and long-term
memory; that information is stored in the long-term memory in the form of schemas; and that
processing new information results in ‘cognitive load’ on working memory which can affect
learning outcomes (Anderson 1977; Atkinson & Shiffrin 1968; Baddeley 1983; Kirschner,
Kirschner, & Paas, 2006, as cited in Heick, 2017).
Cognitive Task Analysis (CTA): Specific process to utilize schema to reduce cognitive load to
increase expert to novice transfer for eventual automaticity (Clark, Feldon, Van Merrienboer,
Yates, & Early, 2008).
Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children (CSEC): Refers to a range of crimes and
activities involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of a child for the financial benefit of any
person or in exchange for anything of value (including monetary and non-monetary benefits)
given or received by any person (CWDAC, 2020; OJJDP, 2020).
Congressional Research Service report (CRS): This collection provides the public with access
to research products produced by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) for the United
States Congress. By law, CRS works exclusively for Congress, providing timely, objective, and
authoritative research and analysis to committees and Members of both the House and Senate,
regardless of political party affiliation. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of
Congress, CRS has been a valued and respected resource on Capitol Hill for more than a century
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
328
(CRS, 2019). The products in this collection were created for the sole purpose of supporting
Congress in its legislative, oversight, and representational duties. New products are regularly
produced to anticipate and respond to issues of interest to Congress on a timely basis. As these
issues develop, so do our products, which may be updated to reflect new information,
developments, and emergent needs of Congress. The products are not designed to provide
comprehensive coverage of the academic literature or address issues that are outside the scope of
congressional deliberations. They are marked as “new,” “updated,” or “archived” to indicate
their status (CRS, 2019).
Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI): The process of identifying, describing, and
analyzing strengths and problems and then testing, implementing, learning from, and revising
solutions to improve the quality of core services and supports (CDSS: STRTP, 2020, p. 10).
County Welfare Director's Association of California (CWDA): A nonprofit association
representing the human service directors from each of California’s 58 counties. The
Association’s mission is to promote a human services system that encourages self-sufficiency of
families and communities, and protects vulnerable children and adults from abuse and neglect
(CWDA, 2020).
Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASALA): A national association in the United States
that supports and promotes court-appointed advocates for abused or neglected children. CASA
are volunteers from the community who complete training that has been provided by the state or
local CASA office (CASALA, 2019).
Direct Care Staff (DCS): Stakeholders are defined as a person “who provides direct care and
supervision, as well as facilitates activities and provides support services” (CDSS: STRTP, 2020,
p. 12).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
329
Educational and Training Vouchers Program (ETV): The Chafee ETV program provides
resources specifically to meet the educational and training needs of Title IV-E eligible foster
youth. The Chafee ETV program offers up to $5,000 per year for post-secondary education and
training to assist youth with skill development needed to lead independent and productive lives
(Carroll & Bishop, 2002; (CDSS: STRTP, 2020).
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA): Passed in 2015 to address negative social outcomes for
TAY to track academic performance on standardized state assessments and high school
graduation by 2018 (Stringer, Kenny, Kim, & Kelly 2019).
Focus Group (FG): Abbreviations used for Focus Group participants in Chapters 3-5.
The Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (FCIA): Aims to assist youth aging out of foster
care in the United States in obtaining and maintaining independent living skills. Youth aging out
of foster care, or transitioning out of the formal foster care system, are one of the most
vulnerable and disadvantaged populations (CDSS: STRTP, 2020).
Independent Living Initiative (ILI): Federal child welfare programs of the Social Security Act
amended Title IV-E by adding section 477. Section 477 launched the Independent Living
Initiative (ILI), aiding the adjustment from foster care to independence (Sims, 1988) for
Transition Age Youth (TAY) between the ages 13-19 (CASALA, 2019).
Independent Living Programs (ILP): Authorized by the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999
(Public Law 106-169). The ILP provides training, services, and benefits to assist current and
former foster youth in achieving self-sufficiency prior to, and after leaving, the foster care
system (Brown & Wilderson, 2010; (CDSS: STRTP, 2020).

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
330
Interim Licensing Standards (ILS): Set of rules that are issued by the California Department of
Social Services as an operational tool to implement a law that was recently passed. These
Standards will be replaced with Title 22 regulation once written and approved (CDSS: STRTP,
2020).
The John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP): Offers assistance to help
current and former foster care youth achieve self-sufficiency. Activities and programs may
include help with education, employment, housing, and connections to caring adults (Children’s
Bureau, 2012).
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization (KMO): Main components/domains measured in a
Gap Analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Long-term Memory (LTM): Memory utilized beyond working memory and recalled for
attainment and utility beyond initial exposition of content (Ambrose et al., 2010).
The Los Angeles Country Probations Department (LACPD): The department provides
correctional programs for adult offenders who have been placed by the Court under its
supervision. This is the administrative office of the Los Angeles County Probation Department
which is supported by county funds. (County of Los Angeles, 2020).
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC): A private, non-profit
501(c)(3) corporation whose mission is to help find missing children, reduce child sexual
exploitation, and prevent child victimization (NCMEC, 2020).
National Youth in Transition Database Report to Congress (NYTD): highlights the
complexities of TAY welfare services, related policy, and legislation while illuminating the
deficiencies in pertinent research impacting TAY independence (NYTD, 2020).
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
331
New World Kirkpatrick Model (NWKM): An updated design of the initial Kirkpatrick
evaluation model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
No Child Left Behind (NCLB): National government mandate for K–12 general education in
the United States from 2002–2015.
Professional Learning Communities (PLC): Term and abbreviation given for collaborative
efforts including relevant stakeholders to achieve a unified or identified goal (Butler, Lauscher,
Jarvis-Selinger, & Beckingham, 2004).
Research Question (RQ): Abbreviation to refer to the defined research questions used to guide
the scope and sequence of the specific analysis.
Sex Trafficking Intervention Research (STIR): A statewide resource for social service
providers to find agencies and organizations that are trauma-informed and trained to work with
individuals who have experienced sexual exploitation (Bayless & Roe-Sepowitz, 2018).
Short-term Residential Therapeutic Program (STRTP): A STRTP is a residential facility
operated by a public agency or private organization that provides an integrated program of
specialized and intensive care and supervision, services and supports, treatment, and short-term
24-hour care and supervision to children and nonminor dependents (CDSS: STRTP, 2020).
Social Cognitive Theory (SCT): Started as the Social Learning Theory (SLT) in the 1960s by
Albert Bandura. It developed into the SCT in 1986 and posits that learning occurs in a social
context with a dynamic and reciprocal interaction of the person, environment, and behavior. The
unique feature of SCT is the emphasis on social influence and its emphasis on external and
internal social reinforcement. SCT considers the unique way in which individuals acquire and
maintain behavior, while also considering the social environment in which individuals perform
the behavior. The theory takes into account a person's past experiences, which factor into
TRANSITION AGE YOUTH RESOURCES
332
whether behavioral action will occur. These past experiences influences reinforcements,
expectations, and expectancies, all of which shape whether a person will engage in a specific
behavior and the reasons why a person engages in that behavior (as cited from Boston University
of Public Health, 2020).
Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound (S.M.A.R.T.): An acronym to
dictate scope and sequence related to targeted goals (Doran, 1981).
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS): Software program used specifically in
social science research (Mayer, 2011).
Transition Age Youth (TAY): Foster care children transitioning into adulthood who have spent
years in group or foster homes or who are “aging out” or exiting the foster care system without
having secured a safe and permanent home (CASALA, 2019)
Working Memory (WM): Abbreviation to identify the cognitive ability to utilize a limited
amount of temporary information for immediate decision-making processes (Ambrose et al.,
2010).
Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD): The distance between the actual development level as
determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as
determined through problem-solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable
peers (Vygotsky, 1935, as cited in Allal & Ducrey, 2000).

Abstract (if available)

Abstract California Transitional Services (CTS) provides various resources for individuals of all ages seeking assistance in living autonomous, productive, and prosperous lives (CTS, 2020). For females classified as Transition Age Youth (TAY) within the U.S. foster care system (CASALA, 2019), CTS offers provisional therapeutic services in Short-term Residential Therapeutic Program (STRTP) facilities until the age of 19. CTS’ STRTP living accommodations serve a specific TAY female clientele that has exhausted long-term foster care opportunities. The residential homes offer a more intimate and private environment with assistance and resources ranging from trauma counseling, group therapy, rehabilitation, and transitional education accountability (CTS, 2020). CTS’ STRTP TAY residential services for females between the ages of 13-19 is a critical research consideration to evaluate the efficacy of services designed to promote sustainable skills for lifelong stability, self-sufficiency, and contentment. The purpose of this study was to implement a Gap Analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008) model to analyze and evaluate knowledge, motivation, and organizational (i.e., KMO) factors impacting educational, psychological, and social autonomy impeding TAY high school graduation rates and college and career readiness. An outcome of this study was to facilitate viable consultation for the reallocation and proficient use of TAY resources leading toward sustainable TAY autonomy. An appraisal of educational, psychological, and social components were integrated from the Gap Analysis findings (Ambrose et al., 2010; Clark & Estes, 2008), guiding and promoting a tangible, scripted protocol of required resources to promote high school graduation rates and support services for viable independence beyond STRTP residency. Findings and solutions addressed validated, partially validated, or not validated KMO domains for integration, refinement, and developmental resources. Knowledge Declarative data analyzed cognitive science, pedagogy, instrumentation, self-regulation, and self-confidence. Knowledge Procedural data measured differentiation, goal values, methodology, data collection, and collaborative strategies. Knowledge Metacognitive data reported cognitive taxonomy, attributions and contingencies, schema, and cognitive attrition. Motivational data measured choice selection, instructional design, goal values, socio-cultural and emotional influences, schema integration, and cognitive barriers. Lastly, Organizational data quantified CTS’ professional learning and instructional design, fidelity of TAY resources, accountability protocol, cross-disciplinary alignment, incentivization, collaboration, and culture/climate factors.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Asset Metadata

Creator Hill, Kenneth Martin (author)

Core Title Gap analysis: transition age youth educational resources for high school graduation and college and career readiness

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2021-05

Publication Date 05/06/2021

Defense Date 04/21/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Achievable,Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS),Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC),and organization (KMO),and Time-bound (S.M.A.R.T.),Assembly Bill 12 (AB 12),California Department of Education (CDE),California Department of Social Services (CDSS),California Legislative Information Digest (CLID),California Youth Connections (CYC),Charleston County School District (CCSD),cognitive load theory (CLT),cognitive task analysis (CTA),commercial sexual exploitation of children (CSEC),Congressional Research Service report (CRS),continuous quality improvement (CQI),County Welfare Directors Association of California (CWDA),Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASALA),direct care staff (DCS),Educational and Training Vouchers Program (ETV),Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA),Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (FCIA),Independent Living Initiative (ILI),Independent Living Programs (ILP),Interim Licensing Standards (ILS),John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP),Knowledge,long-term memory (LTM),Los Angeles County Probation Department (LACPD),Measurable,Motivation,National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC),National Youth in Transition Database Report to Congress (NYTD),New World Kirkpatrick Model (NWKM),No Child Left Behind (NCLB),OAI-PMH Harvest,professional learning communities (PLC),relevant,Sex Trafficking Intervention Research (STIR),Short-term Residential Therapeutic Program (STRTP),social cognitive theory (SCT),specific,Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS),Transition Age Youth (TAY),working memory (WM),zone of proximal development (ZPD)

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Picus, Lawrence O. (committee chair), Getz, Peter M. (committee member), Tobey, Patricia (committee member)

Creator Email hillkm@usc.edu,kh@kmhill.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112720078

Unique identifier UC112720078

Identifier etd-HillKennet-9607.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-HillKennet-9607

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Hill, Kenneth Martin

Type texts

Source 20210507-wayne-usctheses-batch-835-shoaf (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu