THE EVIDENCE
The more Missions students ran, the more they learned.
Don’t take our word for it. Mission.io meets ESSA Level II standards, as validated by Instructure.
ESSA Level IIModerate evidence (2026)
- Validated by
- Instructure, June 2026
- Level II indicators
- 10 of 10 met
- Funded by
- U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences
The headline study
Students who ran Missions pulled ahead. Measurably.
In 2025-26, Instructure independently studied 1,039 fifth graders across 53 classrooms in a large public district, funded by the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences.
Knew more.
52% vs. 45% correct
g = 0.335, p < .001 · +0.94 percentage points per Mission (p < .001)
Wrote better.
2.69 vs. 2.39
6-point rubric, independent raters
g = 0.269, p = .015 · climbs per Mission (p = .049)
More engaged.
Significant
Measured on an independent scale
g = 0.173, p = .009 · earns the study ESSA Level II
Every Mission moved the number.
+0.94
Percentage points of content knowledge per Mission completed (p < .001). The strongest dose signal in the study.
Writing followed the same pattern, climbing +0.035 rubric points with every Mission (p = .049).
+0.94 percentage points of content knowledge per Mission (p < .001). Writing also climbs per Mission (p = .049).
Students who ran about 20 Missions scored roughly 17.9 percentage points higher than students who ran one.
How the study was built
- Design
- Quasi-experimental, with a full comparison group
- Sample
- 1,039 students, 53 classrooms, one large public district
- Measures
- Independent engagement scale; state writing rubric scored by independent raters
- Standard
- Meets What Works Clearinghouse baseline equivalence standards
Bautista, J., Henschel, M., & Allen Green, E. (2026). Mission.io and fifth grade learning outcomes: An ESSA Level II efficacy study, 2025-26. Instructure.
The part your district’s research office reads first.
Every student gets a report on how well they did.
A test shows what a student remembered. A Mission shows what they can do with it. Their report rates how they applied what they learned in the unit, and the skills it took.
Including the quiet one in the back row.
What a report draws on
What they know
Knowledge. What they know about the content the Mission is built on. Application. Using that content to solve the problem in front of them.
Human skills
Initiative. Stepping up to make decisions and move the team forward without waiting to be told. Collaboration. Sharing information, building on each other’s ideas, and backing up teammates. Critical Thinking. Weighing the evidence and reasoning to a conclusion the team can defend. Resilience. Keeping at it when the problem pushes back.
Each report covers the skills that Mission is built to capture.
“After we have learned about a standard my students are able to apply their acquired knowledge to complete a mission together... Their skills of communication and teamwork have increased immensely.”
What the reports have shown
Across 380 schools and 12,613 records, platform data showed collaboration and critical thinking growing over the school year. In Utah’s largest district, platform-measured collaboration rose from 46% to 85% over three years.
Langford, P. (2023). Impact of systematic program usage on development of socio-emotional skills (2022-2023). Mission.io.
Mission.io. (2026a). District-wide, multi-year implementation of Mission.io in Alpine School District [Case study]. Mission.io.
Students were more engaged. Instructure measured it.
ESSA sorts evidence into four levels. Level II is Moderate Evidence.
Behavioral engagement, students who ran Missions vs. those who didn’t: g = 0.173, p = .009 (Bautista et al., 2026).
Doesn’t clear the Level II bar
A rationaleTestimonialsA satisfaction survey
We have all three. None of them earned Level II.
Clears it
A well-designed, well-implemented quasi-experimental study with a statistically significant favorable effect.
The validator. Instructure conducted the study and formally validated it against the ESSA criteria in June 2026: 10 of 10 Level II indicators met. Their name is on the report next to ours.
What’s next. Our research base met ESSA Level IV standards in 2024. The 2026 study earned Level II. Now a federally funded Education Innovation and Research project with Northeastern Utah Educational Services is underway, building to a large-scale randomized controlled trial.
ESSA Level IIModerate evidence (2026)
ESSA Level IVDemonstrates a rationale (2024)
10 of 10
Level II indicators met when Instructure validated the study against the ESSA criteria, June 2026.
One study is a headline. Ours has company.
Here, the fine print is a button.
Science, Utah’s largest district
62.9% vs. 53.6%
Schools that ran 10 or more Missions posted higher state science proficiency than schools that ran none.
9.3 percentage points, d = 1.00, p = .003. Composite, Grades 4 to 6. Correlational.
Methods: Science, Utah’s largest district
In Utah’s largest district, across 60 schools and three years, schools running more Missions posted higher state science scores: Grade 5 r = .239, p = .001; Grade 6 r = .229, p = .002. The composite association held after controlling for economic disadvantage, minority enrollment, school size, and academic year. Schools that ran 10 or more Missions outperformed non-using schools across Grades 4 through 6, a 9.3-percentage-point composite gap (d = 1.00, p = .003).
Mission.io. (2026b). Mission.io usage and elementary science proficiency: A correlational study of Alpine School District from 2021-2023. Mission.io.
Literacy
Grades 3 & 5
Students who ran Missions made significant gains in reading and data analysis.
Gr 3: Z = −3.961, p < .001; Z = −3.429, p = .001. Gr 5: Z = −2.567, p = .010; Z = −3.814, p < .001
Methods: Literacy
In a quasi-experimental study funded by the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences, across six Utah elementary schools and 240 students, third graders made significant gains in reading (Z = −3.961, p < .001) and data analysis (Z = −3.429, p = .001), and fifth graders did the same (Z = −2.567, p = .010; Z = −3.814, p < .001).
Milien, C., Langford, P., Abbott, J., & Haruch, M. (2025). Evaluating the impact of Mission.io on student engagement and literacy outcomes [Manuscript submitted for publication].
Teacher reports
96.1%
of teachers report Mission.io increases student engagement and participation.
Spring 2025 survey, n = 127, teacher-reported
Methods: Teacher reports
In the Spring 2025 satisfaction survey (n = 127), 96.1% of teachers report Mission.io increases student engagement and participation.
Mission.io. (2025). Customer satisfaction survey results for Spring 2025. Mission.io.
Recommendation
75.6 vs. 61
Teachers recommend Mission.io more readily than customers recommend the average tech company.
Net Promoter Score vs. the 2024 technology-industry average, n = 127
Methods: Recommendation
In the same survey, Mission.io’s Net Promoter Score of 75.6 beats the 2024 technology-industry average of 61.
Mission.io. (2025). Customer satisfaction survey results for Spring 2025. Mission.io.
Students show up for it. Teachers enjoy leading it.
- A Mission90
- Science labs82
- Field trips68
The kind of classroom experience teachers rate above a field trip.
Teacher-reported. Spring 2026 Teacher Experience Survey, n = 101.
56%
would spend a free block on a Mission. More than three times the next option.
Spring 2026 Teacher Experience Survey, n = 101, teacher-reported.
“This is the only thing I’ve used in 24 years of teaching that I love just as much as my students do.”
Evelyn Fowles6th grade teacher 
“I was on the floor in disbelief. My students were all participating and all engaged. They were cooperating as a whole team and helping one another.”
Lisa PerryTerra Academy, UT “Students are actively engaged, collaborating, and problem-solving in ways I have never seen before.”
Lauralee WardCoach, Alpine School District, UT “I hear some amazing discussion and debate when it comes time to make critical decisions for the mission... They learn so much and have such a blast. The missions are entertaining even for the teacher!”
Lindsay MaloufCedar Ridge Elementary, Alpine School District, UT
Eight years of federally funded R&D.
Older than this year’s kindergartners.
- 2018-19
National Science Foundation SBIR Phase I: the first whole-class Missions
- 2019-23
National Science Foundation SBIR Phase II: measuring each student’s skills across the whole Mission
- 2022-23
Usage analysis across 380 schools, 107 districts, and 19 states
- 2023-24
U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences, Phase IB: literacy, and our first quasi-experimental study
- 2024
Research base meets ESSA Level IV standards, as validated by Instructure
- 2024-26
U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences, Phase II: the efficacy study
- 2026
ESSA Level II, Moderate Evidence, as validated by Instructure
- 2026 onward
Education Innovation and Research grant: an implementation study, then a large-scale randomized controlled trial
Open invitation
Put us under the microscope.
We partner with schools and districts as research sites, and with grad students hunting for a thesis and post-docs looking for a study. If you want to study whether this works, we want to hand you the data.
Bring your toughest committee member.
Got it.
A real human replies within one school day.
Now back to that literature review. We’ve got this one.
That didn’t send. Try again, or write to support@mission.io and we’ll take it from there.
Common questions
Is Mission.io evidence-based?
Yes. Mission.io meets ESSA Level II standards, as validated by Instructure. An independent quasi-experimental study of 1,039 fifth graders found statistically significant gains in content knowledge (g = 0.335, p < .001), writing performance (g = 0.269, p = .015), and behavioral engagement (g = 0.173, p = .009). In knowledge and writing, gains grew with every Mission run.
Content knowledge +0.94 percentage points per Mission (p < .001); writing +0.035 rubric points per Mission (p = .049). Bautista et al., 2026.
What does ESSA Level II mean?
The Every Student Succeeds Act sorts evidence into four levels. Level II, Moderate Evidence, requires at least one well-designed quasi-experimental study with statistically significant favorable findings.
What does Mission.io measure?
Every Mission gives every student a report on how well they did, built from each student’s behaviors and performance across the whole Mission. Reports draw on six competencies (Knowledge, Application, Initiative, Collaboration, Critical Thinking, and Resilience), covering the ones each Mission is built to capture.
Who conducted the research?
Instructure, the company behind Canvas, conducted and authored the 2025-26 efficacy study, funded by the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences. Earlier development was funded by the National Science Foundation. Mission.io’s own research team conducted the other studies on this page.
Can I read the full study?
Yes. The full report and its ESSA validation are free to download on our Evidence page, no email required. More research is underway, building to a large-scale randomized controlled trial through a federal Education Innovation and Research grant. GET THE FULL STUDY →
Students dig in, and the research holds up.
With every Mission they ran, students knew more and wrote better, and every student gets a report on how well they did. Mission.io meets ESSA Level II standards, as validated by Instructure. Start with one classroom or all of them.
Content knowledge +0.94 percentage points per Mission (p < .001); writing +0.035 rubric points per Mission (p = .049). Bautista et al., 2026.
Last updated