I think over this year, I've gotten better at synthesizing the way that different rhetorical devices work together in order to achieve the author's overall purpose. For instance, in TOW #9, I identified different devices that were used satirically in order to show how sensationalized news is. But in TOW #18, I discussed how an author used quotes to support her credibility, but also pointed out that she analyzed them in a way that made her argument into an ad hominem attack. One rhetorical device or strategy can do two totally different (though not necessarily contradictory) things for your argument, and I think I learned to recognize that later on.
I think I mastered identifying purpose. In the beginning of the year, that was definitely something that confused me, but now I have a better intuitive understanding of what the author is trying to say. I'm able to pick up on how the rhetorical devices they use can indicate their purpose. I could probably still improve my identification of the subtler rhetorical devices. I still tend to notice mainly diction, allusions, usage of quotes, and I know there are many others that I could dig deeper for that are probably affecting the presentation of the author's purpose.
I think these TOWs helped by keeping analysis fresh in our minds. I was grateful that we kept doing analysis on our own so that when the AP exam came, it wasn't completely unfamiliar to have to write an analysis essay. But I often felt like I didn't have the time to take them seriously enough for them to have as big an effect on my analysis skills as they could have, since I would forget about them until Sunday evening. (Just being honest.) I also felt like I didn't always need the extra practice from TOWs. I think they are most beneficial to students who really want to improve their skills and take them seriously, but I think they're useful for everyone regardless.
