Collaboration vs Collusion in HSC Assessments: What’s Allowed?

Two students spend an afternoon discussing an HSC assessment. One explains how to approach the problem, and both go away and write their own responses. Another pair exchange completed answers, change a few words, and submit them separately. Both pairs worked together. Only one pair crossed the line.

The difference between collaboration and collusion in the HSC comes down to what the assessment permits and who is responsible for producing the work being assessed. Collaboration is working together within the task’s rules. Collusion is inappropriately working together to produce work that is meant to be completed individually.

Understanding that distinction means you can study with friends, get help from tutors, and discuss difficult concepts without accidentally compromising the integrity of your assessment.

01What is the difference between collaboration and collusion?

NESA makes a clear distinction between legitimate collaborative learning and academic malpractice.

Collaboration: learning together

Collaboration involves working with other people to develop your understanding, share ideas, and solve problems.

For example, you might:

• Explain a difficult physics concept to a friend.
• Discuss different approaches to a challenging Mathematics Extension 1 question.
• Brainstorm possible research topics with classmates when your teacher permits it.
• Collect experimental measurements with a laboratory partner when the task requires group data collection.
• Ask a tutor to explain a method you haven’t understood.

These activities can help you develop your own knowledge and skills.

NESA’s All My Own Work program explicitly recognises that learning can involve discussing ideas, clarifying thoughts, and working towards shared goals.

The important condition is that everyone contributes honestly and follows the assessment instructions.

Collusion: sharing work that should be individual

NESA defines collusion as inappropriately collaborating with another student, group, person, organisation, or entity to produce work that was meant for individual assessment.

Examples include:

• Sending a completed assessment answer to another student.
• Sharing your calculations so someone else can reproduce them.
• Submitting work that another person has substantially contributed to.
• Agreeing to exchange answers and rewrite them in different words.
• Getting a tutor to produce part of your assessed response.
• Using AI to generate assessed work when its use is not authorised.

An important detail: changing the wording does not make shared work independent.

If your friend writes an explanation and you rewrite every sentence using different vocabulary, the underlying work and reasoning may still have come from your friend.

NESA identifies sharing assessment answers and submitting work substantially contributed to by another person as examples of collusion under its ACE Rules on breaches and malpractice.

02The task’s instructions determine what you can share

Here’s where students sometimes get confused.

There isn’t a universal rule that you can never discuss an assessment with another student. Equally, there isn’t a universal permission to collaborate simply because an assessment is completed at home.

The actual task instructions matter.

Your school determines the format and conditions of its assessment tasks within NESA’s requirements. Some tasks deliberately include group work, while others assess your individual knowledge and understanding.

Consider three common situations.

Example 1: Discussing a topic before an individual assessment

Your Mathematics Extension 1 teacher announces an individual take-home assessment involving applications of integration.

You and a friend meet to revise. You discuss:

• How integration relates to area under a curve.
• When to use substitution.
• How to interpret an integral in an applied problem.
• Common mistakes when applying integration techniques.

You then complete the assessment independently.

This is generally legitimate collaborative learning. You’re discussing mathematical knowledge rather than producing each other’s assessed responses.

However, if you open the actual assessment questions and start exchanging completed solutions, the situation changes.

The distinction is between learning how to solve a type of problem and sharing the answer to a particular assessment question.

Example 2: Collecting experimental data in pairs

Your Chemistry teacher sets a practical investigation. The instructions require students to collect experimental data in pairs but submit individual reports.

You and your partner perform the experiment together and record the same measurements.

You then independently:

• Process the experimental results.
• Calculate relevant quantities.
• Construct your own graphs.
• Evaluate experimental uncertainty.
• Explain the chemical principles behind the observations.
• Write your own discussion and conclusion.

In this situation, having identical raw measurements is expected. You collected the data together because the task permitted it.

However, sharing your completed calculations, evaluation, and conclusion would go beyond the authorised collaboration.

The task permits shared data collection, not necessarily shared analysis.

This is why reading the exact instructions matters more than guessing what is acceptable based on the subject or task format.

Example 3: Receiving feedback from a tutor

Suppose you’re preparing an individual Physics assessment about electromagnetic induction.

You ask a tutor to review your understanding of Faraday’s law.

The tutor explains the relationship between changing magnetic flux and induced electromotive force, works through an unrelated practice problem, and asks you to explain how the principle applies to your investigation.

You then develop and write your own assessment response.

This is legitimate educational support, provided it complies with your school’s task conditions.

Now imagine the tutor writes your assessment’s explanation of the experimental results, and you simply retype it.

That’s a different situation. The submitted work now contains a substantial contribution from someone else.

NESA’s All My Own Work guidance makes this distinction explicitly: receiving tutoring is acceptable, but tutors must not do assessed work for students.

03How to read your assessment notification for collaboration rules

Your assessment notification is one of the most important documents to check before discussing an upcoming task with classmates.

Look beyond the question itself. Identify exactly what the teacher expects you to produce and whether any collaboration is permitted.

Pay particular attention to these instructions:

Consider this fictional assessment notification:

In this example, the boundary is straightforward.

You can share the experimental process and measurements. You cannot assume that permission extends to sharing your calculations or written analysis.

If your notification doesn’t explain the collaboration conditions clearly, ask your teacher before proceeding.

Don’t assume that an instruction is permitted simply because it hasn’t been explicitly prohibited.

For more guidance on identifying the important details in your assessment instructions, read How to Read an HSC Assessment Notification Effectively.

04Collaboration, plagiarism, and collusion aren’t quite the same

These terms are related, but they describe different aspects of academic dishonesty.

They can overlap.

For example, imagine two students agree to exchange their completed Chemistry reports. Each student copies the other’s calculations and changes the wording before submitting.

There are two problems:

1. They have engaged in inappropriate collaboration to produce individual assessment work. This is collusion.
2. They have presented another person’s work as their own. This may also constitute plagiarism.

An acknowledgement doesn’t automatically solve the problem, either.

If your teacher requires an individual response, acknowledging that your friend wrote part of it doesn’t turn that response into independently completed work.

NESA requires students to acknowledge material developed by other people, including peers. However, acknowledging a contribution and being authorised to receive that contribution are separate questions.

05A practical decision tree before you work with someone

When you’re unsure whether a discussion is acceptable, work through these questions.

Step 1: Are you discussing general course content or a current assessed response?

• General course content: Discussing concepts, methods, and practice questions is generally fine.
• A current assessment: Check the task conditions before sharing task-specific work.

Step 2: Does the task explicitly permit collaboration?

• Yes: Identify exactly which activities are permitted.
• No: Keep the assessed response independent.
• Unclear: Ask your teacher before sharing assessment-specific answers or working.

Step 3: What is actually being shared?

• General explanations, practice methods, or authorised group data: Usually acceptable.
• Completed calculations, original analysis, assessment paragraphs, or answers: Potentially collusion if these are meant to be individual.

Step 4: Can you honestly identify your own contribution?

Ask yourself:

• Did I develop this explanation myself?
• Did someone else provide the reasoning I’m submitting?
• Have I acknowledged contributions where required?
• Am I following the task’s actual collaboration conditions?

If you cannot confidently explain where your submitted work came from, stop and clarify the situation with your teacher.

This decision tree is a practical safeguard, not a substitute for your school’s written assessment policy.

06What do NESA and your school actually require?

It’s worth understanding who is responsible for which rules. Not every HSC-related organisation has the same role.

NESA requirements

NESA establishes the academic integrity requirements for HSC assessments and examinations.

Under its current ACE Rules, malpractice includes:

• Plagiarism.
• Collusion.
• Misrepresentation.
• Breaches of assessment conditions.

NESA’s rules require students to complete their work honestly and ensure that submitted work reflects their own knowledge, skills, and understanding.

For the 2027 HSC cohort, the 2027 Rules and Procedures guide also explains the requirement to retain evidence of how your work developed.

This can include:

• Progressive drafts.
• Research notes.
• Working and calculations.
• Planning documents.
• Sketches and project records.

You may need to explain your work and demonstrate your understanding if your authorship is questioned.

Your school’s assessment policy

Your school develops its own malpractice policy and procedures within NESA’s requirements.

This policy must explain how suspected malpractice is investigated, the possible penalties, and the student appeals process.

For school-based HSC assessments, your school is responsible for identifying and managing malpractice.

If the school determines that malpractice has occurred, the offence must be recorded in NESA’s Malpractice Register, and the school may apply penalties under its policy.

The exact penalty depends on the applicable school policy and circumstances. Don’t assume that every school uses an identical penalty for every offence.

What happens in an HSC examination?

The process is different for an actual HSC examination.

NESA is responsible for investigating suspected malpractice in HSC examinations and HSC minimum standard tests through its Examination Rules Committee.

Depending on the circumstances, penalties for examination malpractice can include reduced marks, zero marks, or cancellation of the course.

These are serious consequences, but an allegation is not automatically a finding of malpractice. Students must be notified of suspected breaches and given an opportunity to respond.

What about UAC and universities?

UAC handles university applications, preferences, and offers. It does not determine whether collaboration on your school-based HSC assessment was permitted.

Universities and other education providers have their own academic integrity requirements for assessments they administer. Those are separate from the rules governing your school’s HSC assessment.

For your current HSC task, start with NESA’s requirements and your school’s assessment instructions.

07What should you do if you’re unsure whether you’ve crossed the line?

It’s much easier to clarify the rules before submitting an assessment than to explain an unexpected similarity afterwards.

Use this practical checklist:

• [ ] Read the assessment notification carefully.
• [ ] Check whether the task is individual or group-based.
• [ ] Identify exactly which parts can be completed collaboratively.
• [ ] Check your school’s malpractice policy.
• [ ] Ask your teacher about any unclear collaboration conditions.
• [ ] Keep your own drafts, working, and research notes.
• [ ] Acknowledge assistance and external sources where required.
• [ ] Make sure your final submission reflects your own knowledge and understanding.

If you’ve already shared assessment answers or received substantial help, don’t try to conceal it by changing the wording or deleting your working history.

Speak to your teacher before submitting the task. Explain what happened and ask how to proceed under your school’s assessment policy.

It’s also worth remembering that the same academic integrity principles apply to AI.

If an AI tool helps generate your assessment response, you need to check whether its use is authorised and follow the task’s acknowledgement requirements. Being able to edit or rewrite AI-generated material doesn’t automatically make its use acceptable.

See Can You Use AI for HSC Assessments? A Practical Checklist for more detail.

08Questions and solutions

The following scenarios test whether you can apply the distinction rather than simply memorise the definitions.

Question 1

Two students are revising for a Mathematics Extension 1 assessment.

One student explains how to use integration by substitution to solve a practice problem. The other student asks questions and tries a different practice problem independently.

Neither student shares any answers to their upcoming assessment.

Is this collaboration or collusion? Explain your reasoning.

Solution 1

This is legitimate collaboration, not collusion.

The students are sharing mathematical knowledge to improve their understanding. They are not exchanging answers or producing work for an individual assessment.

NESA recognises collaborative learning as an important part of education, including discussions that help students clarify their understanding.

The important distinction is that each student independently applies the method to their own work.

If they later start exchanging completed solutions to their actual assessment questions, the situation changes.

Question 2

A History assessment notification states:

• Students may brainstorm possible research topics in groups during class.
• The final research question, argument, and written response must be developed individually.

During the brainstorming session, Amelia suggests an original argument about the causes of a historical event.

Later, another student, Ben, uses Amelia’s argument in his individual assessment without acknowledging her contribution. He writes the argument in his own words and develops the remaining paragraphs himself.

Has Ben committed collusion, plagiarism, both, or neither? Explain.

Solution 2

Ben has potentially committed plagiarism, even though the original brainstorming activity was permitted.

The teacher authorised group brainstorming, but that permission did not extend to presenting another student’s original argument as an independently developed idea.

Changing the wording doesn’t change the origin of the idea.

NESA recognises that plagiarism can involve using another person’s ideas, not just copying their exact sentences.

The important distinction is that the original discussion was authorised. The problem arose when Ben used Amelia’s contribution in his individual submission without acknowledgement.

If the students had also agreed to exchange answers or develop individual assessment responses together, the conduct could additionally constitute collusion.

Question 3

Two students complete a Physics practical investigation in pairs.

Their teacher instructs them to collect experimental data together but submit separate reports. Each student must independently calculate the results, construct graphs, analyse the data, and write a conclusion.

Both students submit graphs with exactly the same data points and gradient because they used the same experimental measurements.

Neither student has seen the other’s calculations or report.

Does the identical graph mean they have committed collusion? Explain what evidence would matter.

Solution 3

No. Identical graphs do not automatically indicate collusion in this situation.

The students were explicitly permitted to collect experimental data together.

If they independently process the same authorised measurements, they may naturally obtain identical results, including the same graph coordinates and gradient.

Similarity in the final product needs to be considered alongside the permitted collaboration and how the work was produced.

The relevant questions are:

• Were the shared measurements authorised?
• Did each student independently perform the calculations?
• Did each student independently construct and interpret their graph?
• Did either student use the other’s analysis or written explanation?

They should also follow any instructions about acknowledging shared experimental work.

The tempting assumption is that identical work must mean copying. Here, that assumption ignores the fact that the task deliberately gave both students the same data.

Question 4

A student is preparing an individual Mathematics Extension 1 assessment.

They are struggling with a differentiation question and ask their private tutor for help.

The tutor demonstrates the chain rule using a different practice question, explains the reasoning, and asks the student to identify how the same technique might apply to the assessment.

The student independently works through the assessed question and writes their own solution.

Now consider an alternative: the tutor writes the complete solution to the actual assessment question, and the student copies it into their submission using different notation and wording.

Explain why the two situations are different.

Solution 4

The first situation is legitimate tutoring support, while the second involves an unauthorised contribution to individual assessed work.

In the first situation, the tutor teaches a mathematical technique and helps the student understand how to apply it.

The student remains responsible for developing the actual assessment solution.

In the second situation, the tutor has substantially contributed to the assessed response. Changing the notation or wording does not change who developed the mathematical reasoning.

NESA specifically identifies submitting work substantially contributed to by a tutor, coach, or subject expert as an example of collusion.

The important distinction is not whether a tutor was involved. It’s whether the tutor helped the student learn or effectively produced the work being assessed.

Question 5

A Physics class completes a pendulum investigation.

The assessment notification contains these conditions:

• Students must collect experimental measurements in pairs.
• Students may discuss the apparatus and relevant syllabus theory during the practical session.
• Each student must independently produce their calculations, graph, uncertainty evaluation, and conclusion.
• Students must not exchange assessment answers, drafts, or analysis.

Two students, Mia and Noah, work together to collect their measurements.

After the practical, both independently calculate the mean period and construct a graph using their shared data. Their graphs are identical.

Mia then notices an unexpected feature in the measurements. She develops a possible explanation: the first timing interval may have included the release delay, rather than representing a complete oscillation. She records this explanation in her working notes.

Later, Mia sends Noah the explanation in a message. Noah uses the same reasoning in his individual uncertainty evaluation, but rewrites it entirely in his own words.

Mia submits her original explanation in her report.

Consider the following claims:

1. The identical graphs prove that the students have colluded.
2. Noah’s different wording means his explanation is independently produced.
3. Mia has done nothing wrong because the original explanation was her own work.
4. The students have followed the same rules throughout because they were permitted to collect data together.

Which claims are correct? Explain what each student should do before submitting their report.

Solution 5

None of the four claims is correct. The students’ shared graphs are permitted, but the exchange of individual assessment analysis breaches the stated collaboration conditions.

This scenario tests an important distinction: the origin of the data, the origin of the reasoning, and the appearance of the final submission are three different things.

Let’s examine each claim.

Claim 1: The identical graphs prove collusion.

Incorrect.

The task explicitly permits paired data collection. Both students are entitled to use the authorised shared measurements.

Because they use the same dataset and independently perform the calculations, identical graphs are a reasonable outcome.

The graph’s similarity is explained by the permitted experimental arrangement, not necessarily by copying.

Claim 2: Noah’s different wording makes his explanation independent.

Incorrect.

Noah received Mia’s original explanation and used the same reasoning in his assessment.

Changing the wording does not change the source of the underlying analysis.

The task explicitly requires each student to develop their own uncertainty evaluation. Noah cannot honestly present Mia’s reasoning as independently developed simply because he has paraphrased it.

Claim 3: Mia has done nothing wrong because the original explanation was hers.

Incorrect.

Mia’s original reasoning was her own, but she subsequently shared assessment-specific analysis with another student despite the explicit prohibition.

NESA identifies sharing answers to an assessment with other students as an example of collusion.

The fact that Mia originally developed the explanation does not give her permission to distribute it for use in another student’s individual assessment.

Claim 4: The students followed the rules throughout because paired data collection was permitted.

Incorrect.

Permission to collaborate in one part of a task does not extend to every other part.

The students were allowed to share experimental measurements and discuss the syllabus theory. They were not allowed to exchange their individual analysis.

This is the crucial distinction.

What should Mia and Noah do?

Both students should preserve their working records and the relevant messages, stop exchanging assessment-specific material, and speak to their teacher before submitting their reports.

They should explain which parts were produced independently and which explanation was shared.

The teacher can then determine the appropriate next steps under the school’s malpractice policy.

Noah should not simply rewrite Mia’s explanation again and claim that it is independent. Mia should not assume that sharing her own original work was harmless.

The deeper lesson is that academic integrity isn’t determined by whether two submissions look alike. It depends on how each part was produced and whether that process complied with the assessment conditions.

A shared dataset can legitimately produce identical graphs. Two completely different paragraphs can still contain the same inappropriately shared reasoning.

That’s why the source of your work matters more than its surface appearance.

09The key distinction to remember

You don’t need to study in isolation to complete the HSC honestly.

Discussing difficult concepts, asking questions, attending tutoring, and learning from other students are all valuable parts of your education.

The boundary appears when someone else starts producing the work that your teacher is assessing as yours, or when you share answers beyond what the task permits.

Before your next assessment, make sure you understand exactly which parts can be completed together and which must be your own.

If you’re comfortable with that distinction, your next useful step is learning how to interpret the assessment notification itself, particularly its marking criteria, syllabus outcomes, and task conditions.

Official NESA references

• NESA ACE Rule 10.1: Breaches and malpractice
• NESA ACE Rule 2.1: Formal assessment programs and tasks
• NESA 2027 HSC Rules and Procedures
• NESA All My Own Work: Working together
• NESA All My Own Work: Getting help with your work

Rules note: This guide reflects the NESA 2027 HSC Rules and Procedures guide and current ACE Rules, checked on 9 November 2026. Students completing other HSC cohorts should also check the applicable year’s guide and their school’s current assessment policy.