QDJ page 608 #'s 1,3 & 4

1. What was your impression of Murray's writing processes as they're described here? How do they compare to yours? What do you do the same or differently?
I think his writing processes is actually the perfect thing to go by since all he does is write for a living. He has the time for all of his revising and planning. It only make a lot of sense that Murray would plan everything out before writing it out or making any official things. I feel that is something Murray and I have in common. Before I make anything official, I have to write it out and I spend some time planning.
3. How did this study change Berkenkotter's understanding of writing processes, particularly planning and revising?
She was very much surprised that the time for planning was so much. She then began to realize why there was so much time because planning and revision some times go hand and hand. She also found out that just because you finish drafting doesn't means you're done because it can be re-did to be something greater.
4. What problems with existing methods for studying writing process does Berkenkotter identify? If you read Perl, did you notice any of these problems in her methods? What do you think they might mean for Perl's findings? In what ways is Berkenkotter's newer approach to studying writing processes able to solve the weaknesses in other methods? Do any weaknesses remain?
A problem I see will have to be time management. I say time management with the editing and also with the revising stages. He states some problems that goes on with editing papers people go through. Some of the things he said about editing a paper, I tend to feel the same way, such as there should more editing or revising than actually writing a paper and with that being said, there will be weaknesses still because people will tend to just write and write without taking time to edit or revise.