Elizabeth O.

Elizabeth O.

£24 - £28 /hr

History and Politics (Bachelors) - Oxford University Alumni University

New to the site and yet to acquire customer reviews. We personally interview all our tutors so if you’re not satisfied, let us know within 48 hours and we’ll refund you.

Trusted by schools

This tutor is also part of our Schools Programme. They are trusted by teachers to deliver high-quality 1:1 tuition that complements the school curriculum.

3 completed lessons

About me

Hello! My name is Elizabeth Oladunni, and I recently completed a History and Politics degree at Oxford University.


As someone who is intellectually curious, I greatly enjoy tutoring because it is incredibly rewarding to see my students develop a love and interest in learning. Additionally, I believe that learning should be flexible and tailored to each student, so it's always a delight to work with students to help them find new ways to learn and understand difficult concepts.

Hello! My name is Elizabeth Oladunni, and I recently completed a History and Politics degree at Oxford University.


As someone who is intellectually curious, I greatly enjoy tutoring because it is incredibly rewarding to see my students develop a love and interest in learning. Additionally, I believe that learning should be flexible and tailored to each student, so it's always a delight to work with students to help them find new ways to learn and understand difficult concepts.

Show more

About my sessions

Learning objective:

My lessons normally start with a learning objective for that session.


Recap and clarification:

Then we recap over what we studied together in the last session. I like to hear my students' thoughts, and often let them lead the recap. Through their summary of our previous lesson, I can often gauge their level of understanding, and clarify any issues or topics they didn't understand.


Main lesson:

We then proceed to learn what was specified in the learning objective. When teaching History and Politics, I tend to cover two topics in each lesson to add a bit of variety.


Test:


After the main lesson. I test my students knowledge to check whether they have understood what was taught.


Summary:


I often end the lesson answering any questions they may have, and highlighting the lesson plan for the next session.

Learning objective:

My lessons normally start with a learning objective for that session.


Recap and clarification:

Then we recap over what we studied together in the last session. I like to hear my students' thoughts, and often let them lead the recap. Through their summary of our previous lesson, I can often gauge their level of understanding, and clarify any issues or topics they didn't understand.


Main lesson:

We then proceed to learn what was specified in the learning objective. When teaching History and Politics, I tend to cover two topics in each lesson to add a bit of variety.


Test:


After the main lesson. I test my students knowledge to check whether they have understood what was taught.


Summary:


I often end the lesson answering any questions they may have, and highlighting the lesson plan for the next session.

Show more

Personally interviewed by MyTutor

We only take tutor applications from candidates who are studying at the UK’s leading universities. Candidates who fulfil our grade criteria then pass to the interview stage, where a member of the MyTutor team will personally assess them for subject knowledge, communication skills and general tutoring approach. About 1 in 7 becomes a tutor on our site.

DBS Icon

Enhanced DBS Check

01/07/2017

Ratings & Reviews

0 no reviews yet

Qualifications

SubjectQualificationGrade
HistoryA-level (A2)A*
Government and PoliticsA-level (A2)A*
EconomicsA-level (A2)A*
History and PoliticsDegree (Bachelors)FIRST

General Availability

MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
Pre 12pm
12 - 5pm
After 5pm

Pre 12pm

12 - 5pm

After 5pm
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun

Subjects offered

SubjectQualificationPrices
Government and PoliticsA Level£26 /hr
HistoryA Level£26 /hr
EnglishGCSE£24 /hr
Government and PoliticsGCSE£24 /hr
HistoryGCSE£24 /hr
English13 Plus£24 /hr
History13 Plus£24 /hr
English11 Plus£24 /hr
Maths11 Plus£24 /hr
Oxbridge PreparationMentoring£26 /hr
HATUniversity£28 /hr

Questions Elizabeth has answered

Should the First Past The Post electoral system continue to be used for Westminster elections?

Many would argue that the system of First Past The Post ("FPTP"), which is used to elect MPs in Westminster elections is flawed for a variety of reasons. Firstly, FPTP creates a system of two-party dominance. This means that often votes for third parties are wasted. This was evident in the 2015 general elections, where UKIP secured nearly four million votes, yet only won 1 seat. Conversely, the Conservatives got 11.3 million votes, and 329 seats. This highly disproportionate system is unrepresentative of the people's voice. Moreover, the unrepresentative nature of FPTP leads to a system of tactical voting, where rather than voters voting for their first preference, they settle on their second or third preference. Overall, in the long term, this could foster political disillusionment. Crucially, FPTP also creates a system of 'safe seats' where certain constituencies are de facto tied to one party, as seen in areas like Camberwell and Peckham (Labour), and Buckingham (Conservative). This not only creates voter apathy amongst those who wouldn't vote for the dominant party, it also removes the level of accountability, and scrutiny that election campaigns should bring: opposition parties won't even try to win support in these areas, the real democratic election campaigns occur in swing seats instead. Nevertheless, despite its flaws, FPTP still remains a highly effective electoral system that should continue to be used. It's one MP - one constituency link allows for a strong link between an MP and their constituents. Moreover, two-party dominance has often led to political stability in the UK; there is a clear manifesto and a clear mandate. Coalitions, which often bring political uncertainty, are rare - like that of 2010. Even more, the alternatives to FPTP are not necessarily more democratic - the London Mayoral elections use the Supplementary Vote system, which is a majoritarian system that also retains two party dominance. More proportional systems like the Closed List system, which is used in European elections, create multi-member constituencies which remove the benefit of the close MP-constituent relationship that FPTP offers. Fundamentally, there was a referendum in 2011 which gave the British people an opportunity to change the Westminster electoral system: the people voted no to change, and kept FPTP. Therefore, it is clear that FPTP should continue to be used. It has popular support - largely because it is simple to understand, therefore, there is no need to change a system that is not broken.Many would argue that the system of First Past The Post ("FPTP"), which is used to elect MPs in Westminster elections is flawed for a variety of reasons. Firstly, FPTP creates a system of two-party dominance. This means that often votes for third parties are wasted. This was evident in the 2015 general elections, where UKIP secured nearly four million votes, yet only won 1 seat. Conversely, the Conservatives got 11.3 million votes, and 329 seats. This highly disproportionate system is unrepresentative of the people's voice. Moreover, the unrepresentative nature of FPTP leads to a system of tactical voting, where rather than voters voting for their first preference, they settle on their second or third preference. Overall, in the long term, this could foster political disillusionment. Crucially, FPTP also creates a system of 'safe seats' where certain constituencies are de facto tied to one party, as seen in areas like Camberwell and Peckham (Labour), and Buckingham (Conservative). This not only creates voter apathy amongst those who wouldn't vote for the dominant party, it also removes the level of accountability, and scrutiny that election campaigns should bring: opposition parties won't even try to win support in these areas, the real democratic election campaigns occur in swing seats instead. Nevertheless, despite its flaws, FPTP still remains a highly effective electoral system that should continue to be used. It's one MP - one constituency link allows for a strong link between an MP and their constituents. Moreover, two-party dominance has often led to political stability in the UK; there is a clear manifesto and a clear mandate. Coalitions, which often bring political uncertainty, are rare - like that of 2010. Even more, the alternatives to FPTP are not necessarily more democratic - the London Mayoral elections use the Supplementary Vote system, which is a majoritarian system that also retains two party dominance. More proportional systems like the Closed List system, which is used in European elections, create multi-member constituencies which remove the benefit of the close MP-constituent relationship that FPTP offers. Fundamentally, there was a referendum in 2011 which gave the British people an opportunity to change the Westminster electoral system: the people voted no to change, and kept FPTP. Therefore, it is clear that FPTP should continue to be used. It has popular support - largely because it is simple to understand, therefore, there is no need to change a system that is not broken.

Show more

1 month ago

11 views

Send Elizabeth a message

A Free Video Meeting is a great next step. Just ask Elizabeth below!


Send a message

How do we connect with a tutor?

Where are they based?

How much does tuition cost?

How do Online Lessons work?

mtw:mercury1:status:ok