The Evidence on Innovamat: Here’s What We Know

22/05/2026|6 min read

The Evidence on Innovamat: Here’s What We Know

What impact do Innovamat’s resources have in the classroom? It’s a question we ask ourselves constantly, and one that teachers and families often ask us too. If you’ve been wondering the same thing, in this article you’ll find a snapshot of what we currently know about the impact of our proposal in the classroom.

But evaluating educational programs isn’t straightforward. It requires time, commitment and resources. And it requires a broad view, one that measures results on standardized tests, but also attitudes, perceptions, implementation quality and content analysis. In this article you can read more about how we understand the evaluation of educational programs and why the nuances matter so much.

Evidence at the core from day one

Since Innovamat was founded, we’ve been clear on one thing from day one: every decision had to be backed by scientific evidence. Research shapes how we design learning trajectories, how we support teachers, how we analyze what happens in the classroom, and how we review our proposal to keep improving.

That means putting science at the center, but also building bridges between research and the classroom. That’s why, from the start, we’ve drawn on the expertise of mathematics education experts, such as Cecilia Calvo and Laura Morera, to build a proposal that not only defines what to learn, but also how to support teachers in making it happen. Because change in how mathematics is learned doesn’t come from materials alone: it comes when teachers have the knowledge, support and tools to transform what happens in the classroom.

If you’d like to learn more about why we’re a research-based organization and how we understand scientific evidence in education, we invite you to read the following article by Andreu Dotti, Innovamat’s CEO.

Why research needs scientific evidence

A well-founded proposal: what we propose and why it should work

Before asking whether a program has impact, it’s worth asking what it proposes and how it proposes it. Innovamat’s programs are grounded in the theoretical and pedagogical principles set out in Innovamat’s White Paper, and these principles have themselves been the subject of research. For example, a qualitative analysis of the teaching guides shows that they incorporate features associated with mathematically rich activities, such as tasks that invite reasoning, connecting ideas, communicating strategies, and engaging in meaningful mathematical discourse (read the article)

Added to this are external content reviews, institutional adoption processes and work with experts and educational institutions. These elements don’t replace impact studies, but they help assess the coherence and quality of the proposal from a broader perspective.

Standardized tests

We have several studies analyzing the relationship between using the proposal and students’ results on math tests. And although each study has its own design, context and limitations, they all point in a very similar direction:

In addition, the observed effect sizes tend to be above what’s typical in studies of educational programs of this kind.

Independent studies

The most relevant studies are two independent evaluations, led by external teams: one in Rio de Janeiro, carried out by Germina, and another in New Jersey, carried out by WestEd. In both cases, Innovamat neither designed the tests nor carried out the main analyses, which reduces any potential conflict of interest and increases confidence in the results.

In New Jersey (United States), WestEd carried out a quasi-experimental study with matched groups. Since it wasn’t possible to randomly assign which schools would use Innovamat, WestEd compared students using Innovamat with similar students from other schools that didn’t use it. To do so, it used external data from the LinkIt! test, an assessment the districts already used routinely. The final sample included 910 students: 455 with Innovamat and 455 in the comparison group.

After two years of implementation, WestEd found a statistically significant difference in favor of the Innovamat group, with an effect size of around +0.2 standard deviations. According to Kraft’s framework (2020), an effect size of 0.20 or higher can be considered large in applied educational studies, comparable to programs typically regarded as high-impact in the international literature. This study has been reviewed by external evaluators and received a Tier III rating from Evidence for ESSA (read the article).

In Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), Germina evaluated the impact of Innovamat in public schools using an experimental design with stratified randomization and a difference-in-differences analysis. In the first phase of the study, 5 schools began using Innovamat and 34 remained as a control group. After two years of implementation, students at schools using Innovamat improved more than the control group: the effect size was +0.16 standard deviations in 2nd grade and +0.20 in 3rd grade. Both results were statistically significant. This study aligns with the logic of strong evidence (Tier I) under ESSA, as it incorporates random assignment.

Change comes in the second year

Both studies, moreover, show a very similar pattern. During the first year, no clear impact on academic results is yet observed; improvements appear after two years of use. This pattern fits a key idea: when a program involves deep changes in how mathematics is taught and learned, the impact isn’t usually immediate. Classroom practices change first; then, if implementation takes hold, improvements in results can appear.

Internal studies

Alongside these independent evaluations, we also have internal studies that likewise show a positive relationship between using Innovamat and results on math tests.

For example, in an adaptation of the TIMSS test in Mexico and Spain, with more than 4,000 students analyzed, students at schools using Innovamat achieved better results than those at schools using other educational approaches (read the article). The study also states its limitations: there was no random assignment, and equivalent prior data wasn’t always available to compare the groups.

In Spain, results from the ConMat test show a positive association between more years of experience with Innovamat and better math results, with a sample of tens of thousands of students (read the article). And the Artist program showed meaningful improvements in fact fluency students who started below grade level: 81% of the students who received the intervention reached grade-level performance, compared with 53% in the group without the intervention (read the article).

The combined picture matters. No single study, on its own, settles the question of Innovamat’s impact. But different studies, in different regions, with different tests and led by different teams, paint a coherent picture: when Innovamat is implemented consistently over time, a positive relationship with math results is observed.

Attitudes and motivation

Academic results aren’t the only variable that matters. To understand how an educational program works, we also need to look at what happens with motivation, participation and students’ relationship with mathematics.

On this point, the evidence is more preliminary, but it points to positive changes. An internal study shows a positive correlation between using Innovamat and intrinsic motivation toward mathematics, although no clear differences are observed in other variables, such as math anxiety (brief summary). In addition, both independent studies gather teacher perceptions consistent with this idea: as early as the first year, teachers describe more participation, more mathematical discourse and greater student engagement.

Teacher perception

Teacher perception matters especially because Innovamat doesn’t act as an isolated intervention on students, but through teachers’ practice. That’s why understanding how teachers experience the proposal helps us better interpret the results.

Overall, teachers describe a positive experience with the program, and this rating tends to improve especially from the first to the second year of use (read the article that analyzes responses from more than 7,000 teachers). This finding fits with what’s observed in the independent studies: the first year tends to be an adaptation period, while the second allows routines to become established, confidence to grow, and resources to be used more effectively.

The Germina and WestEd studies also show changes in classroom practices. Teachers report using more physical and digital resources, offering more structured feedback and fostering more active, student-centered teaching, where reasoning, explaining strategies, discussing ideas and justifying procedures become the focus of the class. These changes aren’t a minor detail; they’re precisely the mechanisms that, according to the theory of change, should appear before we see stable improvements in results.

Continuing to learn in order to keep improving

In education, evidence isn’t meant to close conversations, but to open them up with more rigor. It helps us understand what’s working, what conditions make that impact possible, and what aspects we still need to review in order to better support teachers and students.

That’s why, at Innovamat, we don’t see research as something external to the proposal, but as part of the improvement process itself. Because putting science at the center also means accepting that there’s always something more to learn.

Today, the available studies point in a clear direction. When Innovamat’s resources are implemented consistently over time, positive changes appear in results, in classroom practices, and in how teachers and students experience mathematics. And that is precisely our commitment: to keep building a proposal that is ever more solid, more useful, and more connected to what happens every day in classrooms.

Select your region

Select state and language