Our previous results suggest that the use of "Criterion", an automatic writing evaluation (AWE) system, is particularly successful in encouraging learners to produce amended drafts of their essays, and that those amended drafts generally represent an improvement on the original submission. Our analysis of the submitted essays and the feedback provided on the first drafts suggests, however, that the students use a variety of quite different strategies when using the automated computer-based feedback to produce amended drafts. These include simply accepting a suggested correction, interpreting a feedback comment to modify the text, and avoidance strategies such as leaving out text that was highlighted as incorrect or problematic. Our data suggest that the strategies the students use are at least partly influenced by the confidence they have in the feedback, and therefore in the system itself, but may also be influenced by their interpretation of how marks are awarded by the system. This presentation will discuss the findings of an in depth analysis of the changes made in second drafts submitted to the system, linking the changes to the automatic feedback provided on the first draft, and exploring the reasons for the changes made by the students. We will suggest ways in which teachers can explore the utility of various strategies with their learners. [For the complete volume, see ED574893.]