Prize Competitions

How to design a competition

1. Define the problem. The need and problem must be clearly articulated. One useful tool for doing this is a target product profile (TPP). A TPP is a strategic document that summarizes the features of an innovation needed to address an unmet need. It outlines the desired characteristics of a target product by defining the intended use, target population(s), and other desired attributes, including safety and efficacy-related characteristics. You can read more in our TPP playbook here.

2. Determine the target maturity level of solutions. Before launching a competition, the desired readiness of winning solutions must be determined. Completions can range from attempting to crowdsource new ideas to incentivizing the development of commercial solutions. The target level of maturity will help to determine factors like the prize amount that can be offered (i.e., more developed solutions merit a larger prize) and the type and breadth of supports the competition will offer.

3. Recruit innovators. A big, complex problem should attract a large competitor pool. Building and maintaining a large funnel of talent is a year-round effort. It involves advertising the competition through social media, targeting relevant industry groups and message boards, and relying on “connectors” who have large networks and are skilled in matching talent with opportunities. Since most competitors won’t submit their proposals until shortly before the competition closes, it’s best to gauge interest early through an eligibility quiz, email sign-up, or live events like webinars and office hours. This gives a sense of how many and what kinds of innovators to expect and allows time to adjust the recruitment strategy, if needed. Once there is a list of interested innovators, competition organizers should communicate regularly with them, providing reminders of deadlines and opportunities to ask questions. With a wide funnel and supportive touchpoints, participants will be guided from hearing about the competition to submitting a strong proposal.

4. Specify evaluation criteria. Clear rubrics should be established to evaluate innovations fairly.

5. Select judges. A competition needs a set of evaluators and judges with expertise in the problem area.

6. Set the prize amount. This should depend on the size and complexity of the problem to solve. Lower amounts are typically offered for ideas while higher amounts make sense for more refined prototypes and products.

7. Consider your policy on intellectual property. While some competitions allow innovators to retain their intellectual property, others do not. Like a competition’s prize amount or submission requirements, its stance on intellectual property will influence innovators’ decision to compete.

8. Design a feedback process. There should be a clear plan and process for the level of feedback and support each participant will receive, as well as how it will be delivered. This allows for a fair process in which every competitor takes away something valuable, even if they don’t ultimately win.

9. Define the post-competition roadmap. A well-designed competition should anticipate what happens after it ends. It should consider what stage winners will be at (e.g., prototype, minimum viable product) and what steps they should take – and what support they will need – to ensure the full development and scale-up of their innovation.

10. Measure impact. The impact of competitions extends beyond the naming of winners. When deciding how to measure the impact of a competition, consider both the quality and quantity of the concepts, prototypes, or products it generates and the broader impact on the field, years beyond the competition’s formal conclusion.

Beyond the technical achievement, those involved highlighted the paradigm shift sparked by the prize. Peter Diamandis, founder of the XPRIZE, said:

"The idea was, if you set up the right financial incentives, you could get private individuals or companies to do what was historically only accomplished by governments."

Tools Competition

The Learning Engineering Tools Competition (Tools Competition) is a global initiative that supports the development of cutting edge solutions for the most pressing challenges in education. Launched in July 2020, the competition has now run four cycles and named 130 winners from 44 countries who are projected to reach 131+ million learners, from early childhood to adulthood, by 2027. The Learning Agency manages the competition in partnership with academics and Renaissance Philanthropy.

With a mission to advance learning engineering principles, the Tools Competition unites edtech innovators, researchers, and educators to harness big data, enabling a deeper understanding of learning and fostering a culture of continuous improvement and rapid experimentation. By encouraging collaboration across sectors, the Tools Competition generates evidence-based solutions with the potential to reshape the future of education.

Commenting on the 2024 cohort of winners and their impact on the broader learning engineering community, Kumar Garg, President at Renaissance Philanthropy and a founding sponsor of the Tools Competition, said:

"Winning tools stand out in their potential to both transform educational outcomes and build the field of learning engineering. They are demonstrating the power of advanced technology to accelerate learning and are working with researchers to scale their impact for the benefit of the field at large."

This year-long competition follows many of the principles outlined above, including a multi-phase process, allowing competitors to refine their ideas over the course of the competition. Phases include:

• Phase I: The Abstract. Competitors complete a short eligibility quiz and then submit a brief abstract, which describes the problem they are solving and their innovative solution.

• Phase II: The Proposal. Competitors advancing to Phase II build on their ideas and develop a full proposal complete with a budget and plan for learning engineering. Expert reviewers provide detailed feedback on proposals, offering expertise spanning education, technology, and research.

• Phase III: The Pitch. Finalists pitch their ideas live before a panel of expert judges.

To accelerate innovation beyond the scope of the competition, competitors are supported at every stage of the process. Those who don’t advance still receive feedback on their ideas, and all past competitors are eligible to compete in future cycles.

The Tools Competition hosts three prize levels based on the maturity of the innovation:

• Catalyst Prizes ($50,000) are critical for introducing high-innovation, early-stage ideas to the field—creating a space for those without a functioning tool or previous venture to propose their idea.

• Growth Prizes ($150,0000) are designed for products that are ready to be refined and scaled.

• Transform Prizes ($300,000) allow established tools with 10,000 or more users to reach new heights.

The Tools Competition is organized into tracks to spur innovation in areas of greatest need, and often also features cross-cutting priority areas or prizes. Focusing competitors’ attention on core areas builds the capacity of the field to solve seemingly intractable problems in education. Past cycles have included topics such as Accelerating & Assessing K-12 Learning; Coaching for Early Childhood Education; and Facilitating Faster, Better & Cheaper Learning Science Research.

After receiving their awards, winners engage in a year-long, post-prize impact evaluation, covering themes including adoption, scale and sustainability, and evidence and impact. These evaluations indicate that winners see notable expansions in the number of users and significant increases in both funding opportunities and partnership engagement. For example, 72% of 2023 winners reported forming new implementation or distribution partnerships in the first 6 months after being awarded.

Short Answer leverages peer-driven formative assessment to help students improve their writing skills | 2022 Tools Competition winner

VITAL Prize Challenge

Three philanthropic organizations and the National Science Foundation (NSF) came together to design and carry out a $6 million, one-year challenge to support the next generation of learning technologies.

The VITAL Prize Challenge (VITAL) was created in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which disrupted K-12 student learning in profound ways. The pandemic exacerbated gaps in digital access and student achievement – and dampened student performance overall, especially in mathematics. The funding partners shared a vision for improving K-12 STEM education learning by harnessing the talents of researchers, technologists, and educators to design innovative and responsive edtech, particularly for students from marginalized communities.

The public-philanthropic partnership behind this challenge was made possible by NSF’s increasing interest in partnerships, as signaled by its new Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships (TIP) Directorate. At the same time, the participating philanthropies – the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Schmidt Futures, and the Walton Family Foundation – saw the value in partnering with the federal government to amplify and sustain their impact.

This competition invited a wide range of proposals from across the education R&D ecosystem, including universities and startups. Digital Promise, selected by NSF to manage the competition, and the funding partners leveraged their networks to attract over 300 proposals across three focused tracks:

• Rapid and Continuous Learning Assessment;

• Mathematical Literacy to Promote a Future STEM Workforce; and

• Other Innovations in Translational Learning Technologies.

VITAL was a multistage, or down-select, challenge. It first selected 100 Discovery Round teams. In this round, teams received NSF I-corps training to help teams refine their prototype ideas and assess market fit. Then, 54 teams were chosen for the Semi-Final Round, in which they received $20,000 and received supports like “educator mentors,” opportunities to get feedback from students, and a series of equity-centered trainings. Eighteen teams were awarded an additional $50,000 as finalists and had the opportunity to hone their minimum viable product. The Final Round concluded with a Pitch Session, from which nine winning teams were selected, with three winners from each of the three tracks, awarded $250,000 (first prize), $150,000 (second prize), or $100,000 (third prize).

Michael Jay, one of the team leads, discussed VITAL’s emphasis on innovations that support historically underrepresented communities and how this informed his team’s product development:

"VITAL helped us look at populations that are both underserved and bring different traditions to learning and teaching. We have begun conversations with tribal schools in the U.S. to determine how we can best infuse our technology with the ability to represent their cultural perspectives. A unique feature of MatchMaker means this same strategy can be used for other underrepresented populations without judgment or impinging on any group’s beliefs. This also supports greater sharing between educators and institutions and generates a greater audience for organizations that create resources to address what are considered niche needs."

This competition not only resulted in the development of new, equity-focused ed tech prototypes, but also engaged educators and students in the process of developing learning technologies.

Samuel Reed, a VITAL educator mentor, shared how his participation as a co-designer in this competition ended up informing his teaching practice:

"Through my participation in the VITAL Prize Challenge, I had an important learning experience that shed light on the issue of learner variability. As I delved into the challenge, I discovered a significant flaw in my own school district’s dual enrollment programs. While on the surface, these programs seemed to offer valuable opportunities, they lacked the necessary support to accommodate the diverse learning needs of students. This realization is driving me to advocate for more inclusive and adaptable approaches. I want to reinforce the importance of addressing learner variability and the impact it can have on students’ success in dual enrollment programs."

Kasi Math is a multisensory, inclusive learning system for students who are blind or have low vision | VITAL Prize winner Alchemie