This study aimed to verify the validity of a measurement tool for Vietnamese high school students’ systems thinking abilities. Two quantitative assessment tools, the Systems Thinking Measuring Instrument (Lee et al., 2013) and the Systems Thinking Scale (Dolansky et al., 2020), were used to measure students’ systems thinking after translation into Vietnamese. As a result, it was revealed that Cronbach-α for each tool (i.e., STMI and STS) was .917 and .950, respectively, indicating high reliability for both. To validate the construct validity of the translated questionnaire, exploratory factor analysis was performed using SPSS 26.0, and confirmatory factor analysis was performed using AMOS 21.0. For concurrent validity, correlation analysis using structural equation modeling was performed to validate the translated questionnaire. Exploratory factor analysis revealed that 10 items from the STMI and 12 items from the STS loaded on the intended factors and appropriate factor loading values were obtained. For confirmatory factor analysis, a structural equation model organized with 10 items from the STMI and 12 items from the STS was used. The result of this showed that the convergent validity values of the model were all appropriate, and the model fit indices were analyzed to be χ 2 /df of 1.892, CFI of .928, TLI of .919, SRMR of .047, and RMSEA of .063, indicating that the model consisting of the 22 items of the two questionnaires was appropriate. Analysis of the concurrent validity of the two tools indicated a high correlation coefficient (.903) and high correlation (.571-.846) among the subfactors. In conclusion, both the STMI and STS are valid quantitative measures of systems thinking, and it can be inferred that the systems thinking of Vietnamese high-school students can be quantitatively measured using the 22 items identified in our analysis. Using the tool validated in this study with other tools (e.g., qualitative assessment) can help accurately measure Vietnamese high school students’ systems thinking abilities. Furthermore, these tools can be used to collect evidence and support effective education in ODA projects and volunteer programs.

The practice turn in the science education community emphasizes students’ engagement in the activities that scientists and engineers actually do when they see, explain, and critique a phenomenon, or solve a problem. This turn highlights the importance of science learning environments for students. Consequently, the purpose of this study was the examination of relevant literature with the aim of proposing theoretically and empirically derived teaching strategies for students’ productive disciplinary engagement (PDE) through model-based learning (MBL) in science classrooms. To this end, collected literature focusing on PDE and MBL was analyzed to better understand 1) how teachers can foster students' PDE in science classrooms, 2) how PDE can be connected to MBL, and 3) what supports are required for students’ PDE through MBL. As a result of our analysis, a close relationship between PDE and MBL was identified. Importantly, this research reveals the promise of MBL for supporting students’ PDE through the problematizing, authority, accountability, and resources. Further, our literature examination provided a better understanding of what supports are required for students’ engagement in PDE through MBL and why this matters in the context of the practice turn in science education.