Professional Learning  ›  Assessment  ›  Workshops  ›  Medal and Mission Feedback
a ready-to-run workshopMedal and Mission Feedback
Assessment · Workshop

Medal and Mission Feedback (Workshop)

Everything you need to lead this with your staff or PLC: a minute-by-minute run-of-show, what to say, what to hand out, and how to make it stick. Pick the length that fits your slot.

Key takeaway

A great deal of feedback fails because it is vague, one-sided, or not actionable, and the simple medal-and-mission structure fixes all three at once: the medal says specifically what was done well against the goal, the mission gives one concrete next step, and both being referenced to the goal is what makes the feedback informative rather than mere praise and criticism.

Format
PLC / team meeting
Length
45 minutes
Group size
Any (works 4-40)
Who can run it
Any teacher-leader
You will need
Slides (5)Printed handoutA piece of student workA timer
Aligned to
Learning Forward: Rigorous ContentInTASC 6: AssessmentResearch on feedback, Geoff Petty's medal and mission
Share / assign

Why it works

Much of the feedback students receive does little to improve their learning, and the reasons are consistent: it is vague (good job, needs work), so the student cannot act on it; it is one-sided, either all praise that gives nothing to improve or all criticism that gives nothing to build on; or it is not referenced to any goal, so the student cannot tell what good would look like. The medal-and-mission structure, associated with Geoff Petty and drawing on wider feedback research, is a simple, memorable frame that addresses all three failures at once, which is why it is so useful for teachers who want to raise the quality of their feedback without an elaborate system. The structure has two parts, both of which must be referenced to the learning goal or success criteria, which is the element that makes the whole thing work. The medal is information about what the student did well, stated specifically and against the goal: not a vague well done, but this introduction states your argument clearly and previews your three reasons, which is exactly what the criteria call for. The medal is not empty praise; it is feedback that tells the student which of their moves succeeded, so they know what to keep doing and can do it deliberately rather than by accident. The mission is information about what to improve, stated as a specific, actionable next step, again against the goal: not a vague needs more detail, but your second paragraph makes a claim but gives no evidence, so add a specific example that shows it. The mission is one clear thing to do next, not a catalogue of everything wrong, which keeps it actionable rather than overwhelming. The power of the frame comes from three features working together. It is balanced, so the student gets both what is working and what to improve, which sustains motivation while still driving growth. It is specific, because both the medal and the mission describe concrete features of the work rather than general impressions. And it is goal-referenced, because tying both to the success criteria is what turns praise and criticism into feedback, information about the gap between the work and the goal and how to close it. The frame is also memorable and quick enough to use constantly, on written work, in conferences, orally in the moment, which matters because feedback helps only when it is frequent and consistent. A few cautions keep it honest: the medal must be genuine and specific or it becomes the hollow praise half of a compliment sandwich; the mission must be a real, doable next step, not a vague exhortation; and both must connect to the goal rather than to the teacher's general taste. The workshop helps teachers practice writing genuine, specific, goal-referenced medals and missions, and build the structure into their everyday feedback.

The research: Geoff Petty and feedback research on specific, goal-referenced, actionable feedback.

The run-of-show

Choose your slot. The agenda, timings, and length update to match.

    The core activity: write genuine medals and actionable missions

    The heart of the session is practicing the medal-and-mission structure so feedback is balanced, specific, and goal-referenced.

    A medal and a mission, both against the goalFeedback fails when it is vague, one-sided, or goalless. A specific medal (what you did well) and a concrete mission (one next step), both referenced to the criteria, fix all three and tell the student exactly what to keep and what to do.

    Facilitator notes

    Specific and genuine, or it is just a compliment sandwichThe frame works only when the medal is a genuine, specific observation and the mission is a real next step. Vague praise plus vague criticism wearing the medal-and-mission label fools no one and helps no one.

    Adapt it

    Participant handout

    One page for every teacher. Print it, or save it as a PDF.

    K12 Academics · Professional Learning

    Medal and Mission: balanced, specific, actionable

    Give a medal and a mission, both against the goal: say specifically what the student did well and one concrete next step, so the feedback is balanced and actionable.

    1. The learning goal or success criteria I am measuring against:
    2. The medal (specifically what the student did well):
    3. The mission (one concrete, actionable next step):
    4. How I keep the medal genuine and specific, not hollow praise:
    5. How I use the frame frequently (written, oral, in conferences):

    Make it stick

    Medal and mission makes feedback balanced and actionable. Close by setting the follow-up:

    Common questions

    Isn't medal and mission just the compliment sandwich with new names?
    It is specifically designed to fix what makes the compliment sandwich hollow, so no, though the resemblance is why the distinction matters. The compliment sandwich fails because its praise is usually vague and perfunctory (students learn to brace for the criticism in the middle), its criticism is often unclear, and nothing is tied to a goal. Medal and mission differs on exactly those points. The medal is not a softening compliment; it is specific information about which features of the work succeeded against the criteria, so the student knows what to keep doing deliberately. The mission is not buried criticism; it is one concrete, actionable next step tied to the goal. And crucially both are referenced to the success criteria, which turns them from praise and criticism into feedback about the gap between the work and the standard. Used lazily, with a vague medal and a vague mission, it can collapse into a compliment sandwich, which is exactly the trap to avoid; used properly, with specificity and a goal-reference, it is a genuinely different and more useful thing.
    Why only one mission, shouldn't I point out everything that needs improving?
    Because feedback only helps if the student acts on it, and a long list of everything wrong almost guarantees they will not. When you flag ten things, the student is overwhelmed, cannot tell what matters most, and typically acts on none of them or makes scattered, shallow fixes. One well-chosen mission, the single most important next step, is doable, so the student can actually focus on it and improve at it, which is the entire point. Choosing that one step is a professional judgment about what would most move this student's learning forward from where they are, and concentrating their effort there produces more growth than diffusing it across every flaw. This does not mean you ignore the other issues forever; you address the next most important one in the next round of feedback, so improvement is cumulative. But in any single piece of feedback, one genuine medal and one actionable mission beats a comprehensive but unusable inventory of strengths and weaknesses.
    How do I give a genuine medal when the work is weak overall?
    You look for a specific feature that genuinely did work against the criteria, however small, because even weak work almost always has something done right, and naming it precisely is both honest and useful. The medal is not a judgment of the whole piece; it is information about which particular moves succeeded, so in weak work you might credit a clear opening sentence, one well-chosen piece of evidence, an organizational choice that helped, or an accurate calculation within a flawed solution. That is genuine because it is specific and true, not inflated praise about the work as a whole, and it is useful because it tells the student which of their moves to keep and build on. If you truly cannot find anything the student did well against the criteria, that is itself important information suggesting the task was mispitched or the student needs a different kind of support, but in practice a specific, honest medal is nearly always available. What you avoid is the hollow medal, inventing praise to soften the mission, which students see through and which teaches them to discount your feedback.

    Go deeper

    Build it into a bigger day

    Workshop
    Feedback That Moves Learning
    Workshop
    The Three Feedback Questions
    Workshop
    Process Feedback