This protocol study: (1) tested the instructional use of a model of the decision processes involved in revising after feedback; (2) examined whether feedback specifying a text problem was a stronger cue to revision than feedback summarizing the point of a paragraph or predicting forthcoming text; and (3) compared the quality of texts revised after feedback with those revised without feedback. Twenty-four writers in basic writing classes at a northwestern university wrote a paper of advice to a 12th-grader about writing a college application essay. One week later, writers revised their papers, first as they wished, and next after receiving interpretive feedback from two 12th-graders. The experimental group was given a visual and verbal graphic of the decision processes in revising after feedback. The control group was asked to revise in light of the feedback. Results indicate that the prompt specifying decision processes had no effect, and that writers responded more to feedback specifying a whole text problem than to feedback summarizing the point of a paragraph or predicting forthcoming text. Although the quality of all texts revised after feedback was judged higher than that of texts revised before feedback, between-group differences were not significant. Three data tables, 1 figure, and a 69-item list of references are included. Five appendices provide directions for completing the study tasks. (SLD)