One-to-one writing conferences, which allow maximized individualized interaction between student-writers and teacher-readers, are widely adopted teaching practices in composition classrooms. One of the most frequently mentioned benefits of writing conferences is that individual sessions between a teacher and student allows and promotes individual learning. Considering the various needs each student-writer has, conferences can serve as a helpful resource in teaching writing. Especially, L2 writers, who are likely to have more diverse concerns and needs in their learning process, are considered to be in need of individual conferences even more. This study is focused on the following three questions: one, whether writing conferences results in successful revision, if so, two, what characteristics of conference discourse lead to successful revision, and three, how students change, and possibly improve in their engagement in the conference and draft revision. Participants of the study were three L2 writers enrolled in a first year composition course and the instructor of the course. Data included transcripts of conference sessions along with pre- and post-conference student drafts. Fifteen conference sessions, five per each student, were analyzed focusing on features such as topic initiation, type and frequency of questions, negotiations, and directives. Student drafts that were written before and after each session were then examined thoroughly to determine whether revision took place successfully according to the revision direction that was discussed during conference. Findings show that although varying in degree, students succeed in revision after engaging in writing conferences. Results also suggest that features associated with successful revision are type and frequency of questions, type of directives, and frequency of negotiations. However, it is important to note that the features did not vary much within each student, but rather, across students. That is, conference discourse with the three students, whose success rates differed greatly, showed different patterns of features. Firstly, the instructor tended to ask more information seeking questions rather than known information ones with the student whose rate of successful revision was highest, while it was the opposite with the student with the lowest record. Also, the instructor used negotiations mostly frequently with low students, mainly to clarify meaning. Lastly, with the high student, directives were more likely to be suggestions rather than interaction-internal directives (IIDs). In addition, although not evident in the frequency of features, students showed improvement in their draft revision over time. Possible reasons for unsuccessful revision, along with how individualized learning is practiced by conference discourse will also be discussed. In addition, based on the findings, pedagogical implications are examined. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]