In an early think-aloud protocol study that identifies which "actual" written comments help students revise, Mary Hayes and Donald Daiker examine "how students respond to educators' responses". Studying teacher feedback in a writing course focused on revision, Hayes and Daiker asked students to read aloud and analyze their instructor's written responses to their work, evaluating which comments they deemed most useful. Their findings show that positive feedback motivates students to revise, imprecise remarks perplex students, and brief comments complicate students' revision processes. Hayes and Daiker's protocol methodology gives students a more resounding voice in the scholarship than acontextual surveys and interviews, but very few researchers have responded to their 1984 call for more protocol studies. Furthermore, almost twenty years later, Fife and O'Neill maintain that "the students' voices and perceptions are still missing from these articles." In this study, the author uses think-aloud protocol methods to determine how students respond to their teacher's conversational and nonconversational written feedback on their writing. The study suggests that open-ended, cooperative suggestions on students' drafts can encourage writers to brainstorm, critically consider their ideas, and plan revisions, whereas imperative, critically directive, and closed remarks that instruct students to implement particular changes may stifle their active engagement in their writing process. (Contains 5 tables and 4 notes.)