Kate M. GCSE English Literature tutor, GCSE History tutor, A Level En...
£20 - £22 /hr

Kate M.

Degree: Combined Honours in Social Sciences (Bachelors) - Durham University

Contact Kate
Send a message

All contact details will be kept confidential.

To give you a few options, we can ask three similar tutors to get in touch. More info.

Contact Kate

About me

I’m Kate, a student at Durham University. 

I’m available to tutor EnglishHistory, and Religious Studies. I also provide academic writing support and personal statement guidance. 

A bit about me...

I have several years worth of experience tutoring students from various academic backgrounds. I have supported children as young as six, a formally deaf teenager, and school leavers looking for top university places.

I'm reading History and Politics, and I'm also interested in student journalism, rowing, baking, debating and charity work.

Please do take a look at my reviews.

What I offer students...

Enthusiasm is key to success - whether in exams or when building key skills like reading and writing. My tutorials are catered to your needs, and I ensure that whatever we do is fresh and engaging. When we find an interesting way into the topic students are much more likely to relish learning, improve quickly and retain their knowledge. 

The secret to exam success...

In my last year at school I learnt a lesson that has stuck with me. It took turning a C grade in AS Level History into an A* at A Level for me to realise that without a polished exam technique, hours of cramming subject knowledge won’t get you too far. 

This applies to your personal statement too; you might be the perfect university candidate, but the admission officer will pass you buy if your personal statement isn’t laid out correctly.

So, my sessions will always keep in mind that end goal. 

How to get started...

You can get in touch by sending a message - I’m always happy to answer questions. Please don’t forget to include your year group, exam board and topic title. 

We can also arrange a free 15 minute ‘meet the tutor’ session to chat about your needs and try out the online classroom.

Hope to see you soon.

Subjects offered

SubjectLevelMy prices
English Literature A Level £22 /hr
History A Level £22 /hr
English Literature GCSE £20 /hr
History GCSE £20 /hr
Philosophy and Ethics GCSE £20 /hr
-Personal Statements- Mentoring £22 /hr

Qualifications

QualificationLevelGrade
HistoryA-LevelA*
English LiteratureA-LevelA
Religious StudiesA-LevelB
Classical CivilisationsA-LevelA
General StudiesA-LevelA
Critical ThinkingA-LevelA
Disclosure and Barring Service

CRB/DBS Standard

30/12/2015

CRB/DBS Enhanced

No

Ratings and reviews

5from 18 customer reviews

Barbara (Parent) June 8 2016

Excellent resources and tutorial. Thank you

Hannah (Student) April 26 2016

Excellent

Hannah (Student) May 3 2016

Really good session. Thank you

Temi (Student) January 19 2016

Session was excpetional
See all reviews

Questions Kate has answered

What is an extended metaphor and how do you build one?

First things first, a metaphor says that one thing literally is another. Some examples you may have heard before... 'raining cats and dogs', 'shooting the messenger', 'the Good Shepherd'. Even Shakespeare had a crack at it: 'But soft! What light through yonder window breaks? It is the east, an...

First things first, a metaphor says that one thing literally is another. Some examples you may have heard before... 'raining cats and dogs', 'shooting the messenger', 'the Good Shepherd'. Even Shakespeare had a crack at it: 'But soft! What light through yonder window breaks? It is the east, and Juliet is the sun.' (Romeo and Juliet Act 2 Scene 2). 

An extended metaphor does the same thing, but the picture is built up gradually throughout a longer passage. Examiners like them because they help make your writing more sophisticated and show you've thought about the overall message. 

Extended metaphors can be pretty daunting but they also quite fun once you are confident writing them. Here's how I remember the basic rules:

Is the metaphor relevant? 
In other words, does the image you're using to describe your subject (the place, person, situation, object) help to convey your meaning. For example, if you're describing a battlefield, make sure you pick an image that is suitably solemn, respectful or harrowing. If you can, use your metaphor to add some extra meaning to your description.

Is the metaphor accessible?
Whilst you might be a specialist in Korean cooking, American football or ice dancing, your examiner might not be. Make sure you pick your extended metaphor carefully and that the meaning can be worked out by almost everyone.

Is your metaphor proportionate? 
If you're trying to emphasise the scale of an event, compare it to something bigger. Likewise, if you want to get cross how small or insignificant something is, use images like a fruit fly, a one pence coin, or a grain of sand. (Once you get the hang of this you can invert it to create pathos, the feeling of being underwhelmed.)

The building blocks (The lexical field)

If you want to say that an old woman is wise, you might pick the traditional symbol of wisdom - an owl - to compare her too. You might say that she has 'amber eyes', 'feathery' hair or clothes, 'talons' for nails etc. 

If you want to describe a particularly loud or flamboyant person who draws everyone's attention you might start subtly referring to their surroundings as a 'theatre', their friends might be their 'audience', the chatter following what they say might be 'applause'. 

Importantly, try out lots of different things in your metaphor. You only need to use one continuing metaphor in a piece of creative writing. Once you've mastered it you will find that extended metaphors creep into all sorts of writing, because they are a great way to get across a complicated message. 

see more

1 year ago

376 views

What is an extended metaphor and how do you build one?

First things first, a metaphor says that one thing literally is another. Some examples you may have heard before... 'raining cats and dogs', 'shooting the messenger', 'the Good Shepherd'. Even Shakespeare had a crack at it: 'But soft! What light through yonder window breaks? It is the east, an...

First things first, a metaphor says that one thing literally is another. Some examples you may have heard before... 'raining cats and dogs', 'shooting the messenger', 'the Good Shepherd'. Even Shakespeare had a crack at it: 'But soft! What light through yonder window breaks? It is the east, and Juliet is the sun.' (Romeo and Juliet Act 2 Scene 2). 

An extended metaphor does the same thing, but the picture is built up gradually throughout a longer passage. Examiners like them because they help make your writing more sophisticated and show you've thought about the overall message. 

Extended metaphors can be pretty daunting but they also quite fun once you are confident writing them. Here's how I remember the basic rules:

Is the metaphor relevant? 
In other words, does the image you're using to describe your subject (the place, person, situation, object) help to convey your meaning. For example, if you're describing a battlefield, make sure you pick an image that is suitably solemn, respectful or harrowing. If you can, use your metaphor to add some extra meaning to your description.

Is the metaphor accessible?
Whilst you might be a specialist in korean cooking, American football or ice dancing, your examiner might not be. Make sure you pick your extended metaphor carefully and that the meaning can be worked out by almost everyone.

Is your metaphor proportionate? 
If you're trying to emphasise the scale of an event, compare it to something bigger. Likewise, if you want to get cross how small or insignificant something is, use images like a fruit flie, a one pence coin, or a grain of sand. (Once you get the hang of this you can invert it to create pathos, the feeling of being underwhelmed.)

The building blocks (The lexical field)

If you want to say that an old woman is wise, you might pick the traditional symbol of wisdom - an owl - to compare her too. You might say that she has 'amber eyes', 'feathery' hair or clothes, 'talons' for nails etc. 

If you want to describe a particularly loud or flamboyant person who draws lots of attention you might start subtlely referring to their surroundings as a 'theatre', their friends might be their 'audience', the chatter following what they say might be 'applause'. 

Importantly, try out lots of different things in your metaphor. You only need to use one continuing metaphor in a piece of creative writing. Once you've mastered it you will find that extended metaphors creep into all sorts of writing, because they are a great way to get across a complicated message. 

see more

1 year ago

641 views

Why did the Romanov dynasty collapse in 1917?

To access the higher levels, you should show the examiner that you are able to categorise the main factors behind the fall of the Romanov dynasty. Firstly, remember that this question is asking you todiscuss multiple reasons and to decide which is the most important. You should aim to write th...

To access the higher levels, you should show the examiner that you are able to categorise the main factors behind the fall of the Romanov dynasty. Firstly, remember that this question is asking you to discuss multiple reasons and to decide which is the most important. You should aim to write the most about the factor you think is most important.

There are five relevant reasons for the collapse of the Romanov dynasty. The first two are socio-economic hardship faced by the Russian working class and disillusionment among Russian troops, both of which can be categorised as factors relating to First World War. The effects of failed reforms and the role of the Siberian monk Rasputin should be categorised as reasons linked to Nicholas II’s leadership. Finally, the last of the main reasons is the scale and organisation of protests (which can have its own category for now).

 I like to argue that the First World War is the most significant factor in the collapse of the Romanov dynasty, but in this instance it’s definitely okay to argue that either Nicholas II or the nature of the protests are the most important reasons (different historians have taken each of these three views).

Firstly, let’s deal with the effects of the First World War. WW1 led to serious socio-economic hardship for the urban working classes in Russia. This was caused by prices rising steeply or ‘inflation’. This happened because the government became desperate for money – the national budget rose eightfold between 1913 and 1916. Prices rose an incredible 200% between 1914 and 1916. Food shortages also drove prices higher, and added to the economic strain. Agricultural workers were conscripted to the army as part of the war effort, so less food was produced. To compound this, the railways (Russia’s most important transport network) were being used to transport troops. As a result whatever food there was could not easily reach where it was needed. For example, in 1914 Moscow (Russia’s second largest industrial city) received 2200 wagons of grain, but by December 1916 this had fallen just to 300. So, higher prices and less food led to tension among the working classes, contributing to political instability. To worsen the situation, the news of a series of humiliating military defeats for the Russian army led many to question the role of the Tsar as military leader. It appeared that the hardships suffered by a huge number of Russian people would not be validated by a Russian victory or, rather, their sacrifices would be meaningless.

The second reason for the fall of Tsarism is the psychological effect of WW1 on returning soldiers, which was a substantial factor in the growing disillusionment with Nicholas II’s rule. Firstly, the Russian suffered a series of defeats; the Battle of Tannenburg for example, where 30,000 Russians were killed or injured, damaged Russian prestige so much that the frontline subsequently collapsed. This was not helped by supply problems – by the end of 1915, the Russians were limited to using only three artillery shells a day. A failing campaign put strain on troop-officer relations. When Nicholas II decided to fire his uncle Nicolai as commander-in-chief in September 1915, because of these defeats, he led the army very poorly (which is not surprising considering that he had no experience whatsoever). This only compounded the tensions in the army, and undermined Nicholas II. To some the Tsar became a symbol of Russia’s failings, and it can easily be argued that his removal was seen as a way to secure victory for Russia. This discontent was realised when the Petrograd garrison mutinied on 27th February. Many have seen this as a key turning point in the February revolution. This is because in 1905 Tsarism was threatened by revolutionary activity in Petrograd, but the army was crucial in crushing protests on behalf of the Tsar. Now, they had mostly abandoned him because of the effect the war had in exposing the flaws of Tsarism.

The next reason to consider is Nicholas II’s leadership. Part of this is his failure to provide comprehensive reforms. The Dumas, Russia’s first form of partially democratic government installed after the 1905 revolutionary, had been disbanded at the outbreak of war. The Tsar still kept a hold on the Duma membership however, so reforms were not easily passed. This fuelled opposition, in its varied forms. For example, 236 Duma deputies formed the ‘Progressive Bloc’ which existed primarily to call for ‘a government of public confidence’. During WW1 liberals formed ZEMGOR which was intended to aid war casualties, but the Tsar failed to use the organisation effectively. You might even like to explain here that Nicholas was the victim of an inherent trait of a Tsarist autocracy – in other words, as a dictator he just didn’t know to work with democratic organisations which made him look like an ineffective and uncaring leader.

We’ve already covered Nicholas’ decision to leave Petrograd in September 1915, in order to lead the army at the Front, but it’s also significant in terms of Nicholas’ failings as leader of the Russian state. He left his German wife, the Tsarina Alexandra to govern. In a time of political instability this was a very poor decision. Firstly, Alexandra was suspicious to Russians because of her German roots (Germany was the enemy after all. Russians were so hostile to Germany that the name of the capital, St Petersburg, was changed to Petrograd at the start of WW1 because it sounded less German). As a woman, she was viewed as a weak and unstable leader, easily open to influence. This was particularly problematic because of her aide and confidant Rasputin, a Siberian monk who had risen to note in the Royal court when he claimed to be able to cure the Tsar’s son of haemophilia. Rumours circulated about the nature of his relationship with the Tsarina, especially as he oversaw constant ministerial changes. The last shreds of Tsarism’s credibility were completely set aside in the eyes of Russia’s public. (Rasputin was murdered late in 1916, not by peasants or workers but by members of the aristocracy who wanted desperately to preserve Tsarism.) Rasputin should not really be the focus of an answer on the fall of the Romanovs. Instead, he is used as an example of Nicholas’ bad decision making, and how the people’s growing hostility to Tsarism could perhaps have been placated had Nicholas acted differently. Whether or not Nicholas could have done anything to save his dynasty is up for debate, so you can argue either way.

Lastly, you need to discuss the nature of the revolution in 1917 (how it differed from 1905), and why it led to the Nicholas’ abdication. If you wanted to you could categorise this as the role played by chance. For example, the protests in February 1917 grew so big because a series of uncoordinated strikes in the capital clashed with the reconvening of the State Duma which immediately attacked the government over food shortages, giving more people a mandate to protest. By 25th February 1917 over 200,000 people had marched on Petrograd’s streets. In 1905 protestors were divided ideologically, but in 1917 almost all were united by their rejection of Tsarism. The Petrograd Soviet coordinated strikes and protests, making them harder to quash because they would often occur simultaneously. By comparing February 1917 to 1905 you can illustrate the reasons why protests were successful the second time around.

For the conclusion you should aim to draw together your concluding points from each paragraph. I have said that war fuelled socio-economic hardship and created tensions in the army that inspired mutinies in Petrograd, reducing the Tsar’s power to suppress disquiet. Now is the time to explain why one factor is more important than the other, or deserves more consideration. For example, I would suggest that Nicholas’ flaws as leader are secondary to the role played by WW1 because he managed to survive the 1905 revolution, and his ineptitudes would not have been exposed had Russia not been fighting a war. The war also explains why so many people protested, and especially why Nicholas could not hold on to power – his previously loyal troops had turned on him. 

see more

1 year ago

1803 views
Send a message

All contact details will be kept confidential.

To give you a few options, we can ask three similar tutors to get in touch. More info.

Contact Kate

Still comparing tutors?

How do we connect with a tutor?

Where are they based?

How much does tuition cost?

How do tutorials work?

Cookies:

We use cookies to improve our service. By continuing to use this website, we'll assume that you're OK with this. Dismiss

mtw:mercury1:status:ok