EFR 500: Introduction to Educational Foundations

EFR 509: Introduction to Educational Research

T&L 252: Child Development

EFR 511: Program Evaluation

EFR 501: Psychological Foundations of Education

- Psychology of Reading

- Open Educational Resources

- Motivation for Active Learning

- Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

Clinton, V., & Kelly, A.E. (in-press). Improving student attitudes toward discussion boards using a brief motivational intervention. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology.  doi: 10.1037/stl0000160 

Clinton, V. & Kelly, A. (in-press). Student attitudes toward group discussions. Active Learning in Higher Education. doi: 10.1177/1469787417740277  Video abstract here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phI5Ti5ML3M&t=1s

Clinton, V. (2019). Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta-analysis.  Journal of Research in Reading. doi: 10.1111/1467-9817.12269 

Walkington, C., Clinton, V., & Sparks, A. (2019). The effect of language modification of mathematics story problems on problem solving in online homework. Instructional Science, 47(5),499-529. doi: 10.1007/s11251-019-09481-6 

Clinton, V., Legerski, E., & Rhodes, B. (2019). Comparing student learning from and perceptions of open and commercial textbook excerpt: A randomized experiment. Frontiers in Education, 4, art. 110, 1-12. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2019.00110

Clinton, V., & Khan, S. (2019). Efficacy of open textbook adoption on learning performance and course withdrawal rates: A meta-analysis. AERA Open, 5(3), 1-20. 10.1177/2332858419872212

Clinton, V. & Wilson, N. (2019). More than chalkboards: Classroom spaces and collaborative learning attitudes. Learning Environments Research, 22(3), 325-344. doi: 10.1007/s10984-019-09287-w

Clinton, V. & Walkington, C. (2019). Interest-enhancing approaches to mathematics curriculum design: Illustrations and personalization. The Journal of Educational Research, 112(4), 495-411. doi: 10.1080/00220671.2019.1568958

Clinton, V., Basaraba, D.L., & Walkington, C. (2018). English learners and mathematical word problem solving: A systematic review. In D.L. Baker, D.L. Basaraba, & C. Richards-Tutor (Eds.) Second language acquisition: Methods, perspectives and challenges (pp. 171-208).Nova Science Publishers.

Clinton, V. (2019). Cost, outcomes, use, and perceptions of Open Educational Resources in psychology: A narrative review of the literature. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 18(1), 4-20. doi: 10.1177/1475725718799511

Pier, E., Walkington, C., Clinton, V., Boncoddo, R., Williams-Pierce, C., Alibali, M.W., & Nathan, M., (2019). Embodied truths: How dynamic gestures and speech contribute to mathematical proof practices Contemporary Educational Psychology doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.01.012

Clinton, V., & Meester, S. (2019). A comparison of two in-class anxiety reduction exercises before a final exam. Teaching of Psychology, 46(1), 92-95. Doi: 10.1177/0098628318816182 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0098628318816182

Clinton, V. (2018). Savings without sacrifices: A case study of open-source textbook adoption. Open Learning: The Journal of Distance and Open Learning. doi: 10.1080/02680513.2018.1486184 Full text available: https://osf.io/by7jn/

Clinton, V., Swenseth, M., & Carlson, S.E. (2018). Do Mindful Breathing Exercises Benefit Reading Comprehension? A Brief Report. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement, 2(3), 305-310. doi: 10.1007/s41465-018-0067-2

Clinton, V. (2018). Reflections versus extended quizzes: Which is better for student learning and self-regulation? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 18(1). doi: 10.14434/josotl.v18i1.22508 Full text available at http://rdcu.be/Ht4t

Walkington, C., Clinton, V., & Shivraj, P. (2018). How readability factors are differentially associated with performance for students of different backgrounds when solving math word problems. American Educational Research Journal, 55(2), 362-414. . doi: 10.3102/0002831217737028

Williams, C.C., Pier, E., Walkington, C., Clinton, V., Boncoddo, R. Nathan, M., & Alibali, M. (2017). What we say and how we do: Action, gesture, and language in proving. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 48(3), 248-260. doi: 10.5951/jresematheduc.48.3.0248

Clinton, V., Cooper, J.L., Michaelis, J., Alibali, M.W., & Nathan, M.J. (2017).  Revising visuals based on instructional design principles:  Effects on cognitive load and learning.  In C. Was, F.J. Sansosti, & B.J. Morris (Eds.) Eye-tracking technology applications in educational research, (pp. 195-218). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Seipel, B., Carlson, S.E., & Clinton, V. (2017). When do comprehender groups differ? A moment-by-moment analysis of think-aloud protocols of good and struggling comprehenders. Reading Psychology, 38, 39-70. doi: 10.1080/02702711.2016.1216489

Clinton, V., Alibali, M.W., & Nathan, M.J. (2016). Learning about posterior probability:  Do diagrams and elaborative interrogations help? Journal of Experimental Education, 84, 579-599. doi: 10.1080/00220973.2015.1048847

Clinton, V., Morsanyi, K., Alibali, M.W., & Nathan, M.J. (2016). Learning about probability from text and tables: Do color coding and labeling through an interactive-user interface help? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30, 440-453. doi: 10.1002/acp.3223.

Clinton, V., Seipel, B., & Carlson, S.E. (2016). Linguistic markers of inference generation while reading. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 45,  553-574.. doi: 10.1007/s10936-015-9360-8

Walkington, C., Clinton, V., Ritter, S., & Nathan, M. J. (2015). How readability and topic incidence relate to performance on mathematics story problems in computer-based curricula. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(4), 1051-1074.

Clinton, V. (2015). Examining associations between reading motivation and inference generation beyond reading comprehension skill. Reading Psychology,36(6), 473-498. doi: 10.1080/02702711.2014.892040

Clinton, V. (2014).  The relationship between approaches to learning and the process of learning:  An examination of the 3P model.  Instructional Science, 42(5), 817-837.  doi: 10.1007/s11251-013-9308-z

Clinton, V., Seipel, B., van den Broek, P., McMaster, K.L., Kendeou, P., Carlson, S., & Rapp, D.N. (2014).  Gender differences in inference generation by fourth-grade students.  Journal of Research in Reading 37(4), 356-374.  doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2012.01531.x

Clinton, V. & van den Broek, P.  (2012).  Interest, inferences, and learning from texts. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(6), 650-663.  doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2012.07.004

2016-present   Assistant Professor, University of North Dakota, Educational Foundations and Research

2014-2016       Instructor, University of North Dakota, Psychology and Teaching & Learning

2011-2014       Postdoctoral Research Associate, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center for Educational Research

2013-2014       Adjunct Instructor, Madison Area Technical College

2009-2010       Adjunct Instructor, Inver Hills Community College

2009                Graduate Teaching Assistant, University of Minnesota

2005-2006       Learning Instructor, University of Pennsylvania

2004-2005       Classroom teacher, PS 249K, Brooklyn, NY

Terada, Y. (2019, December 5). 2019 Education Research Highlights. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/article/2019-education-research-highlights

Clinton, V. (2019, September 12). Reading from screens compared to paper: What are the differences? [Web log post] Retrieved from https://www.learningscientists.org/blog/2019/9/12-1

Bang, K. (2019, August 15). Paper and Screen Reading. Morning Wave Busan English Radio. Retrieved from http://www.befm.or.kr/radio/ProgramAction.do?cmd=PlayListMgr&prgmId=morning_sp&tab=PRGM_SCRIPT

Barshay, J. (2019, August 12). Evidence increases for reading on paper instead of screens. The Hechinger Report. Retrieved from https://hechingerreport.org/evidence-increases-for-reading-on-paper-instead-of-screens/

Miller, P. (2019, July 2). Reading beyond comprehension. UND Today. Retrieved from http://blogs.und.edu/und-today/2019/07/reading-beyond-comprehension/

Blair, K. (2019, May 23). What’s important to know about screens and reading? Carolina Journal. Retrieved from https://www.carolinajournal.com/opinion-article/whats-important-to-know-about-screens-and-reading/

Ralph, M. & Woodruff, L. (2019, May 12). Reading and Metacognition, 2 pint Professional Learning Communities, [Audio podcast] Retrieved from https://twopintplc.com/podcast-episode/027-reading-and-metacognition

Marshall, V. (2019, April 19). Text books versus technology? Which is better for student learning? Valley News Live. Retrieved from https://www.valleynewslive.com/content/news/Text-books-versus-technology-Which-is-better-for-student-learning-508828421.html

Rosenberg, C. (2019, April 17). Is print reading better than digital reading? Mother Nature News. Retrieved from https://www.mnn.com/green-tech/gadgets-electronics/stories/we-read-digital-text-differently-print

Thompson, A., & Weaver, C. (2019, April 17). Study: Paper Reading More Effective Than Screen Reading. Voice of America. Retrieved from https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/study-paper-reading-more-effective-than-screen-reading/4876473.html

Herold, B. (2019, April 6). Screen reading word for comprehension, leads to overconfident, new meta-analysis concludes. Education Week. Retrieved from https://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/DigitalEducation/2019/04/screen_reading_worse_for_comprehension_metaanalysis.html?intc=main-mpsmvs

Mook, S. (2018, December 2). Open access textbooks help save students money, keep them in class, officials say. Grand Forks Herald, pp A1, A3. https://www.grandforksherald.com/news/education/4536605-open-access-textbooks-help-save-students-money-keep-them-class-officials-say      

Newberry, D. (2017, October 4). Making more free books available to students. Dakota Student. Retrieved from

https://dakotastudent.com/10982/news/making-more-free-books-available-to-students/ 

Clinton, V. (2017, July 11). Elaborative interrogation-what if students can’t produce useful elaborations? [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.learningscientists.org/blog/2017/7/11-1