Scientific Board / Evidence-Based Retention & Student Success
Welcome back, Example University
Institutional monitoring environment
MR
Demonstration Dashboard — Illustrative Data
This public demonstration uses a simulated institutional cohort of
1,537 students.
Figures are illustrative and do not represent a real university cohort.
In a live institutional environment, aggregated QSM assessment data would
replace these demonstration values.
Institutional Overview
Evidence-Based Academic Success and Dropout Prevention
Aggregated six-pillar assessment profile derived from QSM institutional data. The dashboard is designed to help universities identify where additional student support may be appropriate and translate assessment patterns into institutional action.
Students Monitored
1,537
Participation Rate
87.4%
Students Requiring Closer Monitoring
13.5%
Retention Monitoring Indicator
8.7%
Six-Pillar Institutional Profile
Aggregated profile across the six Tarlivy assessment dimensions
QSM Assessment Data
Aggregated Six-Pillar Profile
Illustrative cohort-level values — not individual student scores
Cohort Snapshot
Current view based on the selected faculty, year and programme.
1,537
students represented
QSM Results
9,222
Six Pillars
6
Growth Index
12.8
Monitoring Group
207
QSM Assessment Data
In the live institutional version, these aggregated values would be refreshed from current QSM assessment results.
In the live institutional version, these aggregated values would be refreshed from current QSM assessment results.
Primary Signals
Areas that may deserve closer institutional attention
Cognitive Patterns
61.7
Aggregated cohort patterns indicate where learning-strategy support
may be useful.
Experience & Growth
64.8
Developmental follow-up may help strengthen progression and engagement.
Ambitions & Vision
78.1
Goal and progression alignment can support continued student development.
Suggested Areas of Support
Potential support domains associated with the observed assessment patterns
1
Learning-strategy support
Study-method guidance and learning-strategy development.
2
Academic mentoring
Structured academic conversations and targeted mentoring.
3
Developmental follow-up
Progression conversations and appropriate follow-up.
4
Goal and career alignment
Goal-setting and academic/career direction support.
What Students Requiring Closer Monitoring May Need
Illustrative support interpretation by assessment pillar
Cognitive Patterns
Learning-strategy support, study-method guidance or academic mentoring.
Experience & Growth
Developmental follow-up and progression conversations.
Ambitions & Vision
Goal-setting, academic direction and career alignment.
Self Discovery
Structured reflection and self-awareness development.
Multiple Intelligences
Strength-based learning approaches and learning-path support.
Personality Dimension
Mentoring, engagement support and appropriate student follow-up.
Retention Monitoring & Institutional Action
From assessment evidence to targeted institutional support
Students Requiring Closer Monitoring
13.5%
Illustrative proportion of the selected cohort whose aggregated
assessment patterns suggest that additional monitoring or support
may be appropriate.
207 students represented in this demonstration cohort
Retention Monitoring Indicator
8.7%
Illustrative cohort-level monitoring signal derived from aggregated
assessment patterns. It does not predict individual dropout.
134 students represented by this illustrative signal
01
Observe
Identify relevant aggregated patterns across the six pillars.
02
Monitor
Review appropriate student groups alongside institutional evidence.
03
Act
Direct suitable academic, developmental or mentoring support.
Recommended Institutional Responses
Examples of evidence-based institutional actions
Targeted academic mentoring
Offer structured mentoring where learning or progression patterns
indicate that additional support may be useful.
Learning-strategy interventions
Provide study-method and learning-strategy resources aligned with
the observed cohort profile.
Progression and goal conversations
Support students with academic direction, goals and progression planning.
Monitor intervention outcomes
Compare subsequent institutional evidence to understand whether
interventions are associated with improved outcomes.
Institutional Faculty Overview
Illustrative comparison of the five faculty categories
| Faculty | Students | Participation | Growth Index | Closer Monitoring | Retention Indicator | Status |
|---|
Ethics, Governance & Interpretation
Transparent use of assessment information in institutional decision-making
Important interpretation note
Tarlivy does not replace institutional retention systems. It adds an
evidence-based layer that helps universities understand where and why
additional student support may be needed.
- These indicators do not diagnose students.
- The demonstration values do not predict individual dropout.
- The Retention Monitoring Indicator is an illustrative cohort-level monitoring signal, not a validated individual risk prediction.
- Institutional decisions should combine assessment information with academic, engagement, progression and other appropriate evidence.
- The public dashboard presents aggregated information rather than student names or personal identifiers.
- In a live environment, new QSM assessment results would refresh the aggregated institutional view.