ReviZi logo ReviZi

HSC Investigating Science · Year 12

HSC Investigating Science: what actually gets examined

Every question from 5 official NESA papers, coded by module, topic and marks — so you can decide what to revise from evidence rather than a feeling.

5 NESA papers, 2021–2025 · 213 questions · 500 marks

Three topics carry 44% of the marks in HSC Investigating Science, Scientific Investigation and Technology, Influence of Economic, Social and Political Forces on Scientific Research and Reliability and Validity are where the paper spends its marks. Start there.

Counted from 5 official NESA Investigating Science papers (2021–2025). 213 questions, 500 marks. Nothing estimated.

10 of 15topics in every paper on file
80marks in the single biggest topic
20multiple choice marks, every paper
25%indicative weighting per module, quoted

The key words that carry the paper

Share of written-response questions by NESA key word, matched against NESA's own Glossary of Key Words. Revising the content without revising the directive is how marks get lost. The lower / middle / higher grouping is ours — NESA publishes the list but does not band it. Based on the 35% of written responses that open with a listed key word; the rest open with wording outside it, such as a direct question.

Explain38% · 15qmiddle order
Analyse13% · 5qmiddle order
Evaluate13% · 5qhigher order
Outline10% · 4qlower order
Other8% · 3q
Discuss8% · 3qhigher order
Identify5% · 2q
Justify5% · 2q

Lower orderMiddle orderHigher order

Each tile is one key word; its size is that key word's share of written-response questions that open with one. The smallest 3 are grouped as Other: Compare 3% · 1q, Describe 3% · 1q, Propose 3% · 1q.

Where the marks sit

Each module with its topics underneath. The bar is that topic's share of its own module, and the chip says how many of the papers on file examined it.

Module 5: Scientific Investigations

140 marks

25% indicative weighting, quoted from the syllabus

Reliability and Validity Every paper 65 marks

34 questions · 46% of this module

Different Types of Scientific Investigations Every paper 30 marks

16 questions · 21% of this module

Practical Investigations to Obtain Primary Data Every paper 27 marks

13 questions · 19% of this module

Reporting Most papers 12 marks

4 questions · 9% of this module

Student Investigation Comes and goes 7 marks

3 questions · 5% of this module

Module 6: Technologies

123 marks

25% indicative weighting, quoted from the syllabus

Scientific Investigation and Technology Every paper 80 marks

40 questions · 65% of this module

A Continuous Cycle Every paper 43 marks

19 questions · 35% of this module

Module 7: Fact or Fallacy?

118 marks

25% indicative weighting, quoted from the syllabus

Reading Between the Lines Every paper 43 marks

19 questions · 36% of this module

Testing Claims Every paper 35 marks

16 questions · 30% of this module

Impacts on Investigations Most papers 18 marks

6 questions · 15% of this module

Science as Self-correcting – the Issues Every paper 16 marks

6 questions · 14% of this module

Evidence-based Analysis Most papers 7 marks

5 questions · 6% of this module

Module 8: Science and Society

120 marks

25% indicative weighting, quoted from the syllabus

Influence of Economic, Social and Political Forces on Scientific Research Every paper 77 marks

33 questions · 64% of this module

Incidents, Events and Science Every paper 30 marks

12 questions · 25% of this module

Regulation of Scientific Research Most papers 13 marks

5 questions · 11% of this module

Across 5 papers the modules carried 140, 123, 118, 120 marks — against a 25% indicative weighting each, quoted from the NESA Investigating Science Stage 6 Syllabus (2017). The counted share and the published weighting are two different measures.

How each topic gets asked

The 6 biggest topics, by the shape of the questions actually set on them. Revising the content without revising the directive is how marks get lost — the key words below are NESA's own, counted from the papers.

Scientific Investigation and Technology

Module 6: Technologies · 80 marks across 40 questions

Asked as Multiple choice ×16 · Short answer ×20 · Extended response ×4

NESA key words Explain ×2

Influence of Economic, Social and Political Forces on Scientific Research

Module 8: Science and Society · 77 marks across 33 questions

Asked as Multiple choice ×15 · Short answer ×14 · Extended response ×4

NESA key words Evaluate ×4 · Explain ×3 · Analyse ×2 · Outline ×2 · Discuss ×1 · Compare ×1

Reliability and Validity

Module 5: Scientific Investigations · 65 marks across 34 questions

Asked as Multiple choice ×13 · Short answer ×18 · Extended response ×3

NESA key words Compare ×1 · Outline ×1

A Continuous Cycle

Module 6: Technologies · 43 marks across 19 questions

Asked as Multiple choice ×10 · Short answer ×7 · Extended response ×2

NESA key words Analyse ×3 · Explain ×2 · Outline ×1 · Evaluate ×1

Reading Between the Lines

Module 7: Fact or Fallacy? · 43 marks across 19 questions

Asked as Multiple choice ×7 · Short answer ×11 · Extended response ×1

NESA key words Explain ×2 · Analyse ×1

Testing Claims

Module 7: Fact or Fallacy? · 35 marks across 16 questions

Asked as Multiple choice ×6 · Short answer ×9 · Extended response ×1

What the markers wanted

NSW Education Standards Authority publishes per-question marking feedback after each paper. This is our reading of the 2021–2025 feedback, in our words, grouped by module and cited to the year and question it was seen in. It describes what markers rewarded in papers already sat; it does not predict the next one. The originals are linked below.

Across the paper

  • NESA's own year-on-year advice asks for working to be shown whenever a graph trend is analysed, with units and significant figures carried through to the final answer
  • The same advice asks students to work from the stimulus supplied and refer to it directly, and to know the scientists named in the syllabus in enough detail to give specific events and outcomes

Module 5: Scientific Investigations

Better responses

  • Better work stated a hypothesis as one concise, testable statement naming the independent and dependent variables and the direction of the expected effect, rather than restating the aim
  • Reliability was treated as the consistency of results obtained when identical measurements are repeated, which is not the same thing as simply running the experiment more than once
  • Accuracy was judged by comparing measured values against the accepted true value, and better responses used every reading in the table rather than a convenient few
  • Methods were written as numbered, repeatable steps that specified what quantity was measured and how, and named the variables held constant, instead of a loose description of the approach
  • Reports were organised into the standard sections with the purpose of each one evident, a formal risk assessment included, and impersonal scientific language used throughout
  • Graphs put the independent variable on the horizontal axis, used one uniform scale per axis, added a key for multiple data sets, and fitted a line or curve that suited the whole trend

Where marks were lost — and how to keep them

  • Separating an experimental control, which is a comparison group, from controlled variables, which are the conditions held constant so the independent variable is tested alone
  • Naming the actual independent and dependent variables of the investigation, and recognising that a variable being measured cannot also be one that is held constant
  • Explaining what the data shows using figures read from the table or graph, rather than repeating the hypothesis back or describing the trend in general terms
  • Choosing the right concept when evaluating an investigation: validity concerns the design, reliability the consistency of results, accuracy the closeness to the true value
  • Treating ethical issues as a category of their own, distinct from whether a method was valid, reliable or accurate
  • Spotting an outlier in a data set and handling it deliberately, by leaving it out of a mean and off the line of best fit rather than passing over the issue

Seen in 2025 Q34, 2024 Q27, 2024 Q31, 2023 Q21, 2023 Q30, 2022 Q21, 2021 Q23, 2021 Q33.

Module 6: Technologies

Better responses

  • Better answers named a specific technological development and traced how it made a particular discovery or measurement possible, instead of describing the technology on its own
  • The link between science and technology was presented as a two-way cycle, with a worked example running in each direction rather than an assertion that the two influence each other
  • A technology was tied to the model, law or theory it supported or overturned, showing how scientific understanding moved on as a result
  • Instrument data was graphed on linear scales, with any break in an axis marked by convention and a curve drawn wherever the trend was not a straight line
  • Better responses explained how the instrument produced a quantitative measurement of the dependent variable, which is what made the relationship testable in the first place

Where marks were lost — and how to keep them

  • Describing a relationship in precise terms, such as directly or inversely proportional, and attaching it to the right quantity, for instance the rate of a reaction and not the time it took
  • Naming the particular systematic or random error at work and what caused it, then pointing to the feature of the data that reveals it, rather than stating the category alone
  • Tying the limitations of an investigation to the uncertainty of the measuring instrument used, rather than listing generic sources of error
  • Explaining enough of how the technology works for the link to the finding to hold, instead of naming the device and asserting that it produced the discovery
  • Using an instrument's calibration to account for a consistent offset in its readings, and saying what that offset does to accuracy

Seen in 2025 Q35, 2025 Q36, 2024 Q32, 2023 Q24, 2023 Q36, 2022 Q29, 2022 Q30, 2021 Q26.

Module 7: Fact or Fallacy?

Better responses

  • Better responses named the features that make a practice a pseudoscience, such as borrowed scientific vocabulary and the absence of testable evidence, then pinned each one to the practice in question
  • A theory was set apart from a law: a theory explains and rests on a body of evidence, a law states a tested and usually quantitative regularity, and each was backed by a sound example
  • Claims were weighed against the results actually reported, comparing the figures produced by the study with what is being asserted, not against how plausible the claim sounds
  • The role of a placebo, a control group and blinding was explained in terms of the trial being described, with the dependent variable identified
  • Peer review was described as the check that gives published work its standing, which is what makes the cost and delay of it attractive to avoid through predatory journals
  • Correlation was separated from causation by naming the confounding variables that could produce the association without one thing bringing about the other

Where marks were lost — and how to keep them

  • Evaluating a media report of science using the figures and features of the source itself, rather than general remarks about bias
  • Naming the technique used to distort the data, such as cherry picking or the suppression of unfavourable results, instead of asserting that figures were manipulated
  • Explaining why a conflict of interest warrants caution about the particular results at hand, and supporting that with a comparable case drawn from a different industry
  • Using the scientific senses of hypothesis, theory and law rather than colloquial ones, and applying them to the material given instead of defining the terms and stopping there
  • Contrasting a peer-reviewed article with one written for popular media by purpose and audience, not simply by where each appears
  • Judging a claim on the evidence supplied rather than on personal opinion or the standing of whoever is making it

Seen in 2025 Q24, 2024 Q26, 2023 Q25, 2023 Q32, 2022 Q28, 2022 Q32, 2021 Q28, 2021 Q29.

Module 8: Science and Society

Better responses

  • Better responses handled economic, social and political influences as separate factors, saying for each what it changed about the research that was funded or pursued
  • Funding priorities set by government were connected to research direction through the grant system and the time frames researchers work to, using a named and relevant example
  • The effect of a particular incident on the public image of science was explained through the features of that event, not through a retelling of what happened
  • Codes of conduct and regulations were described in terms of what they require and forbid, then matched to the ethical issue each exists to address
  • Where a judgement was called for, better responses stated it plainly and carried it with at least two developed examples

Where marks were lost — and how to keep them

  • Selecting examples that answer the question set, rather than reaching for a famous case from elsewhere in the course that does not fit it
  • Discussing what the research went on to do for society rather than recounting the research itself
  • Distinguishing broad economic development from the sale of a single product or invention when weighing what scientific research contributed
  • Giving each ethical consideration a reason: the harm it guards against, and which part of the research raises it
  • Setting out points for and against with evidence on both sides, so the response reads as a discussion rather than a statement of personal preference
  • Describing what a code of conduct actually does, instead of narrating an occasion on which someone breached it

Seen in 2025 Q33, 2024 Q30, 2024 Q34, 2023 Q26, 2023 Q34, 2022 Q23, 2022 Q31, 2021 Q34.

2025 NESA marking feedback →2024 NESA marking feedback →2023 NESA marking feedback →2022 NESA marking feedback →2021 NESA marking feedback →

How the paper is built

Marks by question format across the same 5 papers.

Multiple choice 10020 / 20 / 20 / 20 / 20 per paper
Short answer 28154 / 50 / 56 / 61 / 60 per paper
Extended response 11926 / 30 / 24 / 19 / 20 per paper

Multiple choice is exactly 20 marks in every paper. The rest moves around: short answer ran 54, 50, 56, 61, 60 marks and extended response ran 26, 30, 24, 19, 20 marks. 5 papers is not enough to call that a trend.

Every question, by topic

All 213 questions from the 5 papers, listed under the topic each was coded to — year, question number, marks as printed on the paper, key word and format — with NESA's own copy of the paper linked on every row. The questions themselves are read there, not here. Marks here are as printed and every question is listed once, so these totals sit a little apart from “Where the marks sit” above, by design: there, a question coded to more than one topic has its marks split evenly. Open a module to see its list.

Module 5: Scientific Investigations67 questions · 158 marks · show

Reliability and Validity · 31 questions, 78 marks

Different Types of Scientific Investigations · 16 questions, 33 marks

Practical Investigations to Obtain Primary Data · 13 questions, 28 marks

Reporting · 4 questions, 12 marks

Student Investigation · 3 questions, 7 marks

Module 6: Technologies52 questions · 109 marks · show

Scientific Investigation and Technology · 34 questions, 64 marks

A Continuous Cycle · 18 questions, 45 marks

Module 7: Fact or Fallacy?50 questions · 121 marks · show

Reading Between the Lines · 18 questions, 41 marks

Testing Claims · 15 questions, 36 marks

Impacts on Investigations · 6 questions, 21 marks

Science as Self-correcting – the Issues · 6 questions, 16 marks

Evidence-based Analysis · 5 questions, 7 marks

Module 8: Science and Society44 questions · 112 marks · show

Influence of Economic, Social and Political Forces on Scientific Research · 28 questions, 71 marks

Incidents, Events and Science · 11 questions, 28 marks

Regulation of Scientific Research · 5 questions, 13 marks

The papers this is counted from

NSW Education Standards Authority publishes every paper and its marking guidelines. These links go to NESA's own copies — read the questions there.

2021 NESA paper · 100 marks →2022 NESA paper · 100 marks →2023 NESA paper · 100 marks →2024 NESA paper · 100 marks →2025 NESA paper · 100 marks →

These are the external examination papers. They are not the whole subject: Investigating Science is also assessed by school-based assessment set and marked by your school, which NESA does not publish — so nothing on this page covers that part of your result.

Study Investigating Science on Revizi

HSC Investigating Science TopicsHSC Past Exam PracticeHSC Trial Exam PracticeHSC Short Answer PracticeHSC Flashcards HubAll HSC Questions by TopicQuestions by Topic — all curricula

Frequently Asked Questions

Which HSC Investigating Science topics come up every year?

10 of the 15. Every topic marked "Every paper" above was examined in all 5 papers on file. That describes the papers analysed, not a prediction — examiners set each paper fresh.

Which HSC Investigating Science module is worth the most marks?

Module 5: Scientific Investigations 140, Module 6: Technologies 123, Module 8: Science and Society 120, Module 7: Fact or Fallacy? 118 marks across the 5 papers analysed. The syllabus publishes an indicative weighting for each; the counted share and the published weighting are two different measures.

What is the biggest single topic in HSC Investigating Science?

Scientific Investigation and Technology, with 80 of the 500 marks counted across 5 papers.

How was this analysed?

Every question in 5 official NESA HSC Investigating Science papers (2021–2025) was counted against the NESA Investigating Science Stage 6 Syllabus (2017): its mark value, its format and its key word, and the module and topic it assesses. Marks are reconciled against each paper's own stated total.

Are the exam questions reproduced here?

No. NSW Education Standards Authority owns the papers. This page publishes counts and links to NESA's own copy of each paper so you can read the questions at the source. The analysis is ours; the papers stay with NESA.

Does this predict what will be in my exam?

No, and it is not meant to. It describes what has been set. Examiners write each paper fresh and can weight a neglected topic heavily, which is why every topic is listed here, including the ones examined least.

Can I see which HSC Investigating Science questions were set on each topic?

Yes. Every question from the 5 papers is listed above under the topic it was coded to, with its year, question number, marks and key word, and a link to NESA's copy of that paper. The question itself is read there, not here.

What did the NESA markers say about HSC Investigating Science?

NSW Education Standards Authority publishes marker feedback after each paper. The "What the markers wanted" section above is our reading of it across 5 years, in our words, grouped by module and cited to the year and question it was seen in, with the originals linked.

Coded against the NESA Investigating Science Stage 6 Syllabus (2017). Where a question is coded to more than one topic its marks are split evenly, so topic totals within a module can round a mark or two above the module total. A topic is marked "Every paper" when it appears in all 5, "Most papers" when it is missing from one, and "Comes and goes" when it is missing from more — the one-paper tolerance absorbs a single coding miss rather than publishing it. Last updated 2026-09-01 · Exam papers © NSW Education Standards Authority, linked at source.