Your success stories deserve real evidence.
If your product already has implementation history and outcome data, you don’t need to start from scratch. A Tier III study is a correlational research study that uses statistical controls, and it can be longitudinal: following students over time to tell the before-and-after story from data you already have. The key point: you don’t need non-users or any students who were not exposed to your program. A Look Back on Learning Study analyzes what already happened — using the data you have, designing around your specific implementation context — and produces implementation research that shows districts what outcomes look like when schools use your product. Peer-reviewed and ESSA-aligned, in months, not years.
LXD Research ESSA Evidence Badges are listed in the ISTE EdTech Index and regularly shared with Clever, Lightspeed Systems, ClassLink, SchoolDay, and EdVice K12. Free first review and $100 per LXD Evidence Badge through December 31, 2026 for products new to LXD Research. See terms and conditions.
The ESSA IV Package establishes your product as research-based and documents the model. A Look Back Efficacy Study takes the next step — producing a third-party study that shows what outcomes look like when that model is implemented, reaching ESSA Tier II or Tier III on the evidence ladder.
EduEvidence Bronze · Digital Promise Tier 4
bridges the gap
EduEvidence Silver · Digital Promise Tier 3 · State approvals
A Look Back on Learning study is a retrospective research design that works from data that already exists — district-administered assessments, state test results, usage logs, and educator surveys gathered during prior school years. That data doesn’t have to come exclusively from your partner districts. Depending on the assessment your product uses, publicly available datasets and published national norms can serve as valid comparison points, making this design feasible even for companies whose partners haven’t established formal data-sharing agreements. In research terms, it is a correlational study, and it can be longitudinal: we use statistical controls for where students started and, when the data allow, follow students over time to tell the before-and-after story. Every student in the study can be a user of your product; we do not need non-users or students who were never exposed to the program.
The specific approach depends on your situation: published assessment norms, a dosage study of high-use versus low-use students within the same implementation, a comparison of different levels of fidelity to your model, short-term versus longer-term use, a longitudinal before-and-after look at the same students over time, or a prior-year cohort from the same buildings. A matched comparison group from the same year is a Tier II design, which a Look Back study can also deliver. Whichever design fits, we go beyond aggregate results — analyzing how the program worked across student subgroups, including economically disadvantaged students, English learners, students receiving special education services, and students performing below grade level. That kind of subgroup storytelling isn’t just good research. It’s what district procurement committees and state approval panels are specifically looking for.
Look Back Studies typically meet ESSA Tier III (Promising Evidence) and are aligned with EduEvidence Silver and Digital Promise Tier 3 certification — and in our experience, they are regularly approved by state departments of education as ESSA Tier III evidence for state approval lists. With a same-year comparison group, a Look Back Study can also reach ESSA Tier II (Moderate Evidence). Look Back is our preferred way to do research at both Tier II and Tier III, and Tier III studies can also be run in real time.
Tier III is implementation research. Districts want to see it.
Districts are focused on implementation right now. After years of adopting tools and replacing them a couple of years later, many want their teachers to use what they already have well, and to stop changing programs every other year. They want to know what it looks like when a product is implemented well, and what outcomes follow.
That is what a Tier III study shows. Because it is correlational, it looks at how outcomes vary with how the product was actually used, in real classrooms and across student groups, rather than comparing against a randomly assigned control group. Statistical controls for prior achievement and student characteristics keep that comparison fair, and when we follow students over time, that shows the before-and-after story. It is implementation research: evidence of what results look like at different levels of use, at different levels of fidelity to the model, and in short-term versus longer-term use. That is why a Tier III study does not need non-users or students who were never exposed to the program: the comparison is among students who used it, at different levels of use, fidelity, and duration.
The model
Your logic model describes the program: what teachers and students do, and how that is expected to lead to results. It tells a district what good implementation should look like.
The outcomes
Your correlational study shows what outcomes look like when schools implement that model, and for which students. It tells a district what to expect.
Dosage impact, not just a correlation
Many correlational reports stop at a single correlation coefficient. It is accurate, but hard for a district to use. It says that use and outcomes rise together, not what a given amount of use buys. An implementation study, and in particular a dosage study, should answer the question a principal actually asks: how much do we need to use this?
“Usage and outcomes are related.”
One number that shows a relationship but not how big the gain is, at what level of use, or for which students.
“20 sessions gets you this much. 40 sessions gets you this much.”
Gains in assessment points at each level of use, so a district can set a target and see what it should buy.
We also report impact by benchmark profile, meaning where students started relative to grade-level benchmarks, so a district can see who gains most at each level of use. Coursemojo’s twice-a-week threshold and the Classtime finding below, where high-usage classrooms averaged 19 sessions and gained nearly double, are both dosage results of this kind.
Dosage is one of three questions a Tier III study can answer. The second is fidelity: comparing different levels of fidelity to the model, such as classrooms that follow your recommended routine against those that only partly do, using the expectations documented in your Tier IV logic model. The third is duration: short-term versus longer-term use, such as students in their first semester with the product against students in their second or third year. When we follow the same students over time, each of these comes with a before-and-after story, not a single snapshot.
The two go together, and you need one for the other. A logic model with no outcome data is a plan nobody has tested. An outcome study with no documented model leaves a district unsure what was actually implemented. Coursemojo is an example: the usage level identified in LXD Research’s first two studies became part of the basis for its implementation guidance the next year. Together, a documented model and outcome data give a district something to buy and something to hold you to, which matters more as districts look at outcomes-based contracts. Our articles What Is Outcomes-Based Contracting? and How to Get Ready for Outcomes-Based Contracting explain how.
Built for companies with implementation history and outcome data — ready to make it official.
You’ve been in classrooms. You have partner districts. Students have been using your product, and the data shows it. What you don’t yet have is a third-party study that documents those outcomes in a form that procurement committees, state approval panels, and Evidence for ESSA reviewers will accept. That’s exactly what this is for.
You have outcome data from prior school years — pre/post assessments, state test results, or district growth measures — that hasn’t yet been formally analyzed
You want faster results (4–6 months) without committing to a prospective study or disrupting current implementation
You already have an ESSA IV foundation and are ready to move up the evidence tier ladder with a study that shows impact on student outcomes
You want to appear on state approval lists or Evidence for ESSA, and need a published third-party study to qualify
You’re losing RFPs to competitors with published research, and need to close the evidence gap without a full-scale prospective trial
You want a library of studies that covers different contexts — grade levels, student populations, subject areas, implementation intensities — to address more district situations
You want to show how outcomes change as students use your product over time: an optional longitudinal design that follows students and tells the before-and-after story
You want a dosage study, plus a look at different levels of fidelity to your model and short-term versus longer-term use, so districts know what to expect and what good implementation looks like
Everyone in your partner schools already uses your product, so you have no non-users or unexposed students to compare against, and you don’t need them for Tier III
The right design is determined by your data — not the other way around.
A Look Back Study is an approach, not a single template. The study design we recommend depends entirely on what outcome data you have, how your product was implemented, and which reviewers or approval panels you’re designing for. We start every engagement with a data assessment conversation before recommending a design path. Here are the five most common approaches we use at Tier III, and most use statistical controls so the comparison is fair.
Prior-Year Cohort Comparison
This year’s students using the product are compared to last year’s students from the same schools, before the product was in place. Because the schools, assessments, and instructional context are the same, this design controls for many variables. Subgroup analysis can reveal whether the program’s impact was consistent across student populations — or stronger for specific groups like English learners or students who started below grade level.
Note: Evidence for ESSA and What Works Clearinghouse require treatment and comparison groups from the same year, so a prior-year cohort comparison is treated as Tier III there. Some states, including Arizona, accept it at Tier II under their own rubrics, and it works for Digital Promise and EduEvidence too. The label depends on where you submit.
Your product rolled out to an entire school or district in a defined year, leaving a clean pre-implementation cohort in the same buildings.
Publicly Available Norms & Benchmarks
Student growth is compared against published national or state norms for the same assessment — no comparison school needed. Many standardized assessments publish expected growth trajectories by grade level and starting score. We use those public benchmarks to evaluate whether students using your product grew at above-expected rates, and disaggregate results by subgroup to tell a more complete story about who benefited most.
You use a standardized assessment with published growth norms (NWEA MAP, Amplify DIBELS, iReady, or state benchmark tools with normed trajectories) — and partner districts haven’t established formal data-sharing agreements for a comparison group.
Dosage Study: High Use vs. Low Use
Within a single implementation, students or classrooms with high engagement are compared to those with lower usage — isolating the dose-response relationship between product use and outcomes. Every student in the comparison is a user, so no non-users are needed. We use statistical controls for where students started, so high-use students aren’t simply the students who were already ahead. This approach works well for demonstrating that the program works better when used as intended, and for identifying which student populations respond most strongly to higher engagement.
You have reliable usage data (logins, time-on-task, features completed) and meaningful variation in how much students engaged — especially when your product is widely adopted and no external comparison group is available.
Longitudinal Before-and-After Study (Optional)
Tier III does not have to be longitudinal, but it can be. When the data allow, we follow the same students across two or more testing windows or school years, so the study tells a before-and-after story: where students started, how they grew, and how that growth compares with expected growth from published norms. Every student in the study can be a user; no non-users are needed. Statistical controls for prior achievement and student characteristics keep the story honest.
You have the same students’ scores across multiple windows or years (fall, winter, and spring, or year over year), especially when students use your product for more than one semester.
Fidelity and Duration Comparison
Within a single implementation, we compare different levels of fidelity to your model, such as classrooms that follow your recommended routine against those that only partly do, and short-term versus longer-term use, such as students in their first semester against students in their second or third year. Both comparisons are among students who used the program, so no non-users are needed, and both use statistical controls. Together they show districts what good implementation looks like and how long it takes to see results.
You can document how the product was implemented (coaching or observation records, teacher surveys, usage patterns) and you have students with different amounts of time in the program.
A complete study — designed for peer review, built for your sales team.
Every Look Back Study includes the full research infrastructure needed to satisfy Evidence for ESSA reviewers, state approval panels, and procurement teams. Each deliverable serves double duty: academic credibility and practical sales utility.
Recruitment & Partnership Support
We identify partner districts from your existing customer base, frame the research around their own student needs, and manage the outreach. That includes drafting and negotiating MOUs and Data Sharing Agreements, submitting to district departments of research and accountability, and coordinating any external IRB processes. You don’t need to manage the district relationship — we do.
Administrator Interviews & Existing Survey Integration
We conduct structured interviews with school and district administrators to capture implementation context — the conditions, decisions, and factors that shaped how your product was used. If your company has already gathered educator surveys, we incorporate that data into the study rather than starting from scratch. The qualitative picture this creates is what gives the numbers meaning for buyers and reviewers.
Quantitative Data Analysis
Rigorous statistical analysis of student outcome data using the methods expected by Digital Promise and EduEvidence reviewers — effect sizes, significance testing, subgroup breakdowns, statistical controls for prior achievement and student characteristics, growth for the same students over time when the data allow, and where applicable, matching or norming procedures. For implementation research, we also report dosage impact (what different numbers of sessions are associated with, in assessment points) impact by benchmark profile, comparisons across different levels of fidelity to the model, and short-term versus longer-term use. Evidence for ESSA (Johns Hopkins) now accepts retrospective studies at the Moderate (Tier II) level, as long as the treatment and comparison groups come from the same year. A design that compares against a different year’s cohort is not eligible, so we choose the design with that in mind. The study is also built to meet the evidence standards for Digital Promise Tier 3, EduEvidence Silver, and state department of education approval processes.
Academic Research Report
A peer-review-ready study report with full methodology, results, discussion, and limitations — written to the standards of Evidence for ESSA, What Works Clearinghouse, and state-level review bodies. This is the document submitted to review platforms and cited in RFP responses.
Research Summary (Co-Branded)
An educator-friendly executive summary that distills the study’s key findings into a format your sales team can hand to a district leader or attach to a conference presentation. Co-branded with your product identity, designed to stand alone without the full report.
Publication & Indexing Services
Your completed study is submitted to ERIC (the Education Resources Information Center) and indexed on ResearchGate — making it publicly discoverable by district leaders, state reviewers, and procurement teams searching for evidence. We show you how to submit your research to ISTE’s EdTech Index (free), where all of your badges will live, and we have a clearinghouse link ready for your state submission, so your team can submit without hunting for the right place. We also manage your EduEvidence submission.
Aligned with EduEvidence Effectiveness Silver, Digital Promise Tier 3, and state ESSA Tier III approvals.
Look Back Studies are designed to meet the evidence standards these certification bodies use. In our experience, they are routinely accepted by state departments of education as ESSA Tier III (Promising Evidence) for product approval lists. Most firms leave certification navigation to you. We show you how to submit your research to ISTE’s EdTech Index (free), where all of your badges will live, and we have a clearinghouse link ready for your state submission.
EduEvidence Effectiveness Silver Included
The EduEvidence Effectiveness Silver badge, issued by the International Certification of Evidence of Impact in Education (ICEIE), recognizes products with a completed study demonstrating measurable impact on student learning outcomes. LXD Research is an official ICEIE partner and manages the submission process on your behalf — so you don’t navigate it separately. Certified products are listed in the global EdTech database and receive a LinkedIn shoutout and backlink from ICEIE.
Learn about EduEvidence →Digital Promise Tier 3
Digital Promise Tier 3 certification recognizes products backed by a completed efficacy study with student outcome data — a meaningful step beyond the Tier 4 (research-based design) certification. Look Back Studies are designed to meet its evidence standard, and Digital Promise submission is available for an additional fee. Here is what Tier 3 and Tier 4 require.
Learn about Digital Promise →State Department of Education — ESSA Tier III
More than 40 states tie product funding access to ESSA evidence documentation. Look Back Studies are regularly accepted by state departments of education as ESSA Tier III (Promising Evidence) for product approval lists. We have supported approval processes in Arizona, Michigan, Mississippi, Colorado, Utah, Arkansas, and beyond — and design every study with each state’s specific review requirements in mind from the outset. See our state summaries: Michigan, Arizona, and Mississippi.
Clearinghouse link ready for your state submissionESSA-approved studies, and the implementation research that supports them.
A Look Back Study is only as valuable as the credibility of the firm that produced it. We work exclusively with edtech companies, which means we understand the data systems districts use, the implementation realities of edtech products, and exactly what procurement committees and state review panels are looking for when they evaluate evidence. Our Tier I and Tier II studies are the ones that earn ESSA approval on Evidence for ESSA. Our Tier III studies are correlational implementation research, longitudinal when the data allow: using statistical controls, they go beyond a single correlation to report dosage impact, impact by benchmark profile, different levels of fidelity to the model, and short-term versus longer-term use, so districts can see what each level of use buys, and they pair with your Tier IV model. We then show you how to submit your research to ISTE’s EdTech Index, which is free and is where all of your badges will live, and we have a clearinghouse link ready for your state submission.
Studies from our portfolio.
These are studies LXD Research has produced for edtech clients — documenting what implementation looks like, what outcomes follow, and earning ESSA recognition and third-party certification.
Coursemojo — From Impact Threshold to Implementation Guidance
Coursemojo built its implementation guidance on several studies, including LXD Research’s first two efficacy studies of its AI teaching assistant, in Sumner County and Aldine, Texas. Those two studies established a twice-a-week usage level at which students showed impact, and Coursemojo used that threshold, along with its other research, to write its implementation guidance for the following school year. That is how implementation research is meant to work: the studies show what level of use produces results, and the company turns that into guidance schools can follow.
Classtime — Math Achievement Study
A retrospective study of 667 students in a California district — 91% Hispanic, 89% socioeconomically disadvantaged. This dosage study’s central finding was a clear dose-response story: students in high-usage classrooms (averaging 19 sessions) gained nearly double on the CAASPP state test compared to low-usage classrooms and comparison schools. That kind of usage analysis is both rigorous and strategically compelling — it answers the buyer question “does it work better when teachers actually use it?” with a clear yes. Published on ERIC and presented at ISTE 2025.
Zaner-Bloser Handwriting — Alabama State-Level Study
A retrospective, correlational study using publicly available state data — Grade 3 handwriting proficiency rates reported by every elementary school in Alabama — matched against Zaner-Bloser’s own sales data to estimate investment level per student. No new data collection required. The story is a dose-response relationship, a dosage study at the school level: 69% proficiency in low-investment schools, 82% in moderate, and 91% in high-investment schools, with each additional dollar per student associated with an 18% greater likelihood of proficiency. The design mirrors exactly how district leaders evaluate products — compiling available data sources and weighing them as evidence — and earned ESSA Tier III recognition.
95 Percent Group — Multisyllable Routine Cards
A two-year retrospective study in Wicomico County, Maryland examining 2,868 fourth and fifth graders — 65% economically disadvantaged, 40% Black or African American. Year 2 students using MSRC gained significantly more on iReady than the prior-year cohort in the same schools (effect sizes of 0.30 and 0.23). Students two or more grade levels behind showed the largest gains, and results held consistently across racial and economic subgroups — the kind of equity-centered storytelling state reviewers and district procurement committees specifically look for.
“LXD Research helps us see that the big picture is the number of studies and the levels of those studies — to ensure we have a cross-section of varying research. So that when we’re searched on ERIC or Evidence for ESSA, we have a robust profile of studies.”
“Our LXD Research Look Back Studies have led us to additional partnerships due to seeing this data and the impact that educator support is having on teacher retention and student growth.”
“LXD Research has provided us invaluable consultation surrounding research strategy, guiding the development of evidence-informed digital products, and communicating our evidence base to educators. Their team partnered with districts to conduct rigorous ESSA studies that secured our products on coveted state lists.”
Send it over. You don’t need non-users or students who were not exposed to the program. If you already have a correlational study, a longitudinal study that follows students over time, a before-and-after report, or a dosage analysis (including comparisons of different levels of fidelity to your model, or short-term versus longer-term use), we will review it for free and tell you which ESSA tier it supports and what, if anything, would move it up. You receive a written memo within two weeks, and each LXD Evidence Badge you earn is $100.
Start Your Free ReviewA Look Back Study is the right next step when you have existing outcome data and want ESSA evidence quickly. If you’re starting implementation now or pursuing Tier I (Strong Evidence), a Real-Time ESSA Study may be the better path. And if you’re earlier in your evidence journey — or haven’t yet established a research foundation — an ESSA IV Package is where most companies begin.
← Learn about the ESSA IV Package firstThe researcher behind 25+ Evidence for ESSA approvals.
Dr. Rachel Schechter is the Founder and President of LXD Research. Before founding it, she served as Director of Research at Lexia Learning, where she built a 12-member research department and a portfolio of What Works Clearinghouse-aligned studies. LXD Research has produced 25+ studies approved by Johns Hopkins’ Evidence for ESSA.
She has led Look Back Studies for edtech companies across literacy, math, professional development, and formative assessment — designing retrospective studies that hold up to the scrutiny of Evidence for ESSA reviewers, state approval panels, and district procurement teams. Her studies have been published on ERIC, presented at international conferences, and cited in state RFP responses across the country.
See Look Back Studies explained — in plain language.
Our YouTube series breaks down what each ESSA tier actually requires and how retrospective study designs work. Watch before your consultation or share with your leadership team.
Turn what you already know into evidence.
Book a free conversation to look at your existing data, identify the right study design, and understand what a realistic timeline and investment look like for your specific situation.