IB Mentor — IBHighway

Overview

What is IB Mentor?

IB Mentor is a subject-aware AI tutor trained on the IB curriculum. Unlike a general chatbot, it knows the IB command terms, the assessment criteria for each component (IA, EE, TOK essay), and the exact mark scheme language examiners use. Ask it anything — it answers as an experienced IB teacher would, not as a generic assistant.

📚

All 7 subjects

Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, Extended Essay, TOK, and CAS — each with its own expert context.

🔬

IA & EE guidance

Research question design, variables, methodology, data analysis, bibliography — all aligned to IB criteria.

🧠

TOK support

Knowledge questions, AOKs, WOKs, real-life situations, essay outlines, and exhibition connections.

⚡

Instant, complete answers

No "here's a summary" — Mentor delivers the full answer with examples, structure, and IB-specific detail.

Coverage

What it covers

Select the relevant topic tab when you open the tool. Mentor adjusts its expertise to match:

🌐

General IB

All subjects, exam strategy, IB diploma requirements

🧬

Biology

HL/SL cells, genetics, ecology, evolution, physiology

⚗️

Chemistry

Stoichiometry, bonding, energetics, kinetics, organic

⚛️

Physics

Mechanics, waves, electricity, fields, atomic/nuclear

📐

Mathematics

AA and AI HL/SL — calculus, stats, algebra, proof

📝

Extended Essay

RQ design, structure, criteria A–E, reflections

🧩

TOK

Essay, exhibition, AOKs, WOKs, knowledge questions

🌱

CAS

Project planning, reflections, learning outcomes

Getting started

How to use it

1

Select your subject tab

Click the relevant tab at the top (Biology, Physics, Extended Essay, TOK, etc.). This loads the right expert context — Mentor will use subject-specific terminology and criteria.

2

Ask your question directly

Be specific. "Help me with my IA" is too vague. "I want to measure how temperature affects enzyme activity in catalase — give me a research question, variables, and method" gets you a complete, usable answer.

3

Follow up to go deeper

Mentor remembers the conversation. After the first answer, ask "explain the catalase mechanism" or "what are common mistakes in this experiment" — it builds on what was already discussed.

4

Ask for IB-specific detail

Try "phrase this in mark scheme language" or "what would a level 7 IA analysis look like here" — Mentor responds in the exact language examiners use.

Example conversations

See it in action

These show the kind of answers Mentor gives — specific, structured, and IB-aligned.

1

Designing an EE research question — Physics

Extended Essay

heating an LED and finding the current that passes through it and hence finding Planck's constant

Research Question

"How does the forward voltage threshold of an LED vary with wavelength, and how can this relationship be used to determine Planck's constant?"

Independent (IV): Wavelength of LED (use LEDs of different colours — red ~660 nm, green ~530 nm, blue ~470 nm, violet ~410 nm)
Dependent (DV): Threshold forward voltage V₀ at which current just begins to flow
Controlled: Temperature of LED, circuit resistance, measurement method (same ammeter/voltmeter), ambient light

Key equation: eV₀ = hf = hc/λ → h = eV₀λ/c

Method outline: Plot V₀ vs 1/λ. The gradient = hc/e. From this, extract h and compare with 6.626 × 10⁻³⁴ J·s.

IB Criterion A note: Frame the RQ around the physics principle (Planck's relation), not just the procedure. Examiners reward conceptual depth over description.

💡

What made this work: The student gave a clear topic. Mentor produced a complete RQ, variables table, method outline, and examiner tip in one response — ready to take to a supervisor meeting.

2

Planning a TOK essay — prescribed title

TOK

My TOK title is "In gaining knowledge, we need to trust established sources. Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge." How do I structure this essay?

Core knowledge question: What is the relationship between trust and epistemic justification in different AOKs?

Suggested AOKs: Natural Sciences + History (strong contrast — science has peer review structures; history relies on contested source interpretation)

Essay structure (1600 words):

Introduction (150w): Define "established sources" and "trust" as distinct. State your thesis — e.g. trust is a necessary starting point but insufficient without critical evaluation.
AOK 1 — Natural Sciences (400w): RLS: Replication crisis in psychology. Claim: peer review creates a trust framework. Counter: reproducibility failures show trust can be misplaced. Mini-conclusion.
AOK 2 — History (400w): RLS: Revisionist histories of colonial periods. Claim: primary sources from authorities were trusted uncritically. Counter: historians now triangulate sources. Mini-conclusion.
Synthesis (350w): What conditions make trust epistemically justified? Cross-AOK comparison — role of institutional structures vs individual critical thinking.
Conclusion (150w): Restated thesis, acknowledge the tension, IB sign-off linking back to the title words.

💡

Follow-up prompts to try: "Give me a real-life situation for the replication crisis" · "How do I write a TOK mini-conclusion?" · "What would an examiner say is missing from this structure?"

3

Physics IA — improving a weak research question

Internal Assessment

My IA is about a pendulum. I want to find how length affects the period. Is this a good RQ?

The idea is fine but the research question as stated is too open for a top-scoring IA. Here's the issue:

Weak version: "How does the length of a pendulum affect its period?"
→ This is a known relationship (T = 2π√(L/g)). Examiners look for originality and personal engagement.

Stronger versions:

"How does the effective length of a bifilar pendulum affect its period of oscillation, and does the relationship T ∝ √L hold for torsional motion?"
"How does the bob mass affect the damping coefficient of a simple pendulum swinging through viscous fluid (glycerol)?"
"To what extent does the amplitude of oscillation affect the period of a simple pendulum for angles greater than 15°?" (tests small-angle approximation limits)

IB Criterion A (Focus and method): A good RQ names the IV and DV precisely, implies the physics principle being tested, and is genuinely investigable in a school lab.

💡

Key insight: Mentor doesn't just confirm or reject — it explains why the original is weak and gives concrete alternatives with examiner criteria attached. This is what a good IB teacher would do.

Getting more out of it

Tips for better answers

→

Be specific about your context

Instead of "help with my IA", say "I'm doing an SL Biology IA on enzyme kinetics with potato catalase, measuring rate via O₂ production at different pH values." The more context, the more targeted the answer.

→

Ask for IB language explicitly

"Rephrase this in IB mark scheme language" or "what command term applies here?" — Mentor will shift to examiner-style phrasing you can use directly in your work.

→

Ask it to critique your draft

Paste your RQ, thesis statement, or IA methodology and ask "what would an examiner say is missing?" — it will give criterion-by-criterion feedback.

→

Use it for exam practice

"Give me a level 7 response to this Paper 2 question" or "what are the common mistakes students make on this topic" — Mentor knows the exam patterns.