Tips for Developing a Successful Phase I Abstract

Welcome to the Tools Competition, a global ed tech competition that encourages innovators at all stages of development to use digital technology, big data, and learning science to conceive of bold ways to meet the urgent needs of learners worldwide. 

The 2026 Tools Competition will award more than $3 million to winning tools that present high-impact ideas for K–12 and postsecondary learning, as well as high-quality datasets that support future education research and development.

This year’s competition tracks include:

• Accelerating K-12 Learning Track
• Building Pathways to Postsecondary Success Track
• Datasets for Education Innovation Track

Innovation starts simply – with an idea. Phase I of the Tools Competition allows individuals and teams to submit a brief abstract on the idea for their tool. It’s not necessary to have everything figured out as you submit your abstract in Phase I – the competition is designed to give you time and space to build and refine your ideas over the course of the competition. For the abstract submission on October 15th, you should focus on finding the best fit track for your tool and sharing your vision so that we can ensure it is a strong fit for the Tools Competition.

With this in mind, below are some tips to help you develop a strong abstract, informed by what we see from the most successful submissions. 

1. Find the right track and prize level fit. Select the track and prize level that best align with your objectives and phase of development and describe your vision in alignment with the objectives of the track and stage of development. If you’re unsure, use this eligibility quiz to help guide your decision. Remember to review the track pages to learn more about the core objectives, target audience, and eligibility requirements of each track. 

• Avoid choosing a track or prize level that doesn’t truly align with your tool. Reviewers look for alignment with the stated goals of the track, and are not able to advance even compelling ideas that don’t meet the track’s requirements. Each year, the competition has different tracks and priorities; if there isn’t a great fit this year, it doesn’t mean there won’t be one in the future.

2. Clearly describe your tool. Remember to keep it simple. After reading your proposal, someone without additional background information should be able to understand and describe your tool and why it matters. Responding to the specific prompts in the submission form will help structure your abstract effectively.

• Avoid a generic marketing pitch or describing only existing features without showing how your tool is innovative or novel. The competition seeks to fund innovative ideas through new tools or enhancements to existing tools, with high priority given to tools that demonstrate uniqueness or highlight advantages over similar products in the market. Abstracts that read as a general funding request to support operations or expansion efforts rarely advance. 

3. Learning Engineering should be an anchor, not an afterthought. Regardless of your stage of development, the strongest competitors make it clear that their tool contributes to (or will contribute to) advancing learning science. Strong submissions demonstrate a commitment to leveraging learning data to enhance both the tool and the field. 

• Avoid vague references to “using data” without connecting it to concrete learning outcomes and broader research goals. Abstracts that only emphasize product tweaks or a single planned evaluation miss the bigger picture.
• Learn more about Learning Engineering in this blog post. 

4. It’s about quality, not quantity. At this phase, we’re interested in a focused idea over one that tries to cover everything. Take the time to clearly communicate the key aspects of your tool, describing how it works and explaining how it addresses an urgent need in education.

• Avoid sweeping claims or promises without evidence. Be sure to support your tool’s need, design, or effectiveness with appropriate and clear evidence. 

5. Show your vision for growth. Sketch out where you’re headed: how your tool could evolve, scale, or broaden its impact over time. Use this abstract to briefly highlight what positions your tool for growth, such as existing relationships, partnerships, or early funding. Be realistic about scale: explain not only how your tool could expand its reach or impact, but also the barriers you might face (cost, physical components, market saturation, etc.).

• Avoid presenting your idea as static or limited to one narrow use case or offering vague promises of “reaching millions” without evidence of traction or a clear path forward.
•  

6. Build in buffer. If possible, submit your proposal in advance of the Oct. 15 deadline to avoid any potential difficulties submitting. We are not able to accept submissions past the deadline.