Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss1/general/article1.cfm
Editors’ Note: For the benefit of readers who are unfamiliar with the notion of technology,
pedagogy, and content knowledge (TPACK), we offer the following condensed and
updated depiction by Mishra and Koehler (2007), which was presented originally at
the annual conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher
Education in 2007.
Judi Harris & Matt Koehler
Special Issue Guest Editors
What Is Technological Pedagogical
Matthew J. Koehler and Punya Mishra
This paper describes a
framework for teacher knowledge for technology integration called technological
pedagogical content knowledge (originally TPCK, now known as TPACK, or technology,
pedagogy, and content knowledge). This framework builds on Lee Shulman’s construct
of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) to include technology knowledge. The
development of TPACK by teachers is critical to effective teaching with
technology. The paper begins with a brief introduction to the complex,
ill-structured nature of teaching. The nature of technologies (both analog and
digital) is considered, as well as how the inclusion of technology in pedagogy
further complicates teaching. The TPACK framework for teacher knowledge is
described in detail, as a complex interaction among three bodies of knowledge:
Content, pedagogy, and technology. The interaction of these bodies of knowledge,
both theoretically and in practice, produces the types of flexible knowledge
needed to successfully integrate technology use into teaching.
As educators know, teaching is a complicated practice that
requires an interweaving of many kinds of specialized knowledge. In this way,
teaching is an example of an ill-structured discipline, requiring teachers to
apply complex knowledge structures across different cases and contexts (Mishra,
Spiro, & Feltovich, 1996; Spiro & Jehng, 1990). Teachers practice their
craft in highly complex, dynamic classroom contexts (Leinhardt & Greeno,
1986) that require them constantly to shift and evolve their understanding. Thus,
effective teaching depends on flexible access to rich, well-organized and
integrated knowledge from different domains (Glaser, 1984; Putnam & Borko,
2000; Shulman, 1986, 1987), including knowledge of student thinking and
learning, knowledge of subject matter, and increasingly, knowledge of
The Challenges of Teaching With Technology
Teaching with technology is complicated further considering
the challenges newer technologies present to teachers. In our work, the word
technology applies equally to analog and digital, as well as new and old,
technologies. As a matter of practical significance, however, most of the
technologies under consideration in current literature are newer and digital
and have some inherent properties that make applying them in straightforward
Most traditional pedagogical technologies are characterized
by specificity (a pencil is for writing, while a microscope is for viewing
small objects); stability (pencils, pendulums, and chalkboards have not changed
a great deal over time); and transparency of function (the inner workings of
the pencil or the pendulum are simple and directly related to their function)
(Simon, 1969). Over time, these technologies achieve a transparency of
perception (Bruce & Hogan, 1998);
they become commonplace and, in most cases, are not even considered to be
technologies. Digital technologies—such as computers, handheld devices, and
software applications—by contrast, are protean (usable in many different ways; Papert, 1980); unstable (rapidly changing); and opaque (the inner workings are
hidden from users; Turkle, 1995).On an
academic level, it is easy to argue that a pencil and a software simulation are
both technologies. The latter, however, is qualitatively different in that its
functioning is more opaque to teachers and offers fundamentally less stability
than more traditional technologies. By their very nature, newer digital
technologies, which are protean, unstable, and opaque, present new challenges
to teachers who are struggling to use more technology in their teaching.
Also complicating teaching with technology is an
understanding that technologies are neither neutral nor unbiased. Rather,
particular technologies have their own propensities, potentials, affordances,
and constraints that make them more suitable for certain tasks than others
(Bromley, 1998; Bruce, 1993; Koehler & Mishra, 2008). Using email to
communicate, for example, affords (makes possible and supports) asynchronous
communication and easy storage of exchanges. Email does not afford synchronous
communication in the way that a phone call, a face-to-face conversation, or
instant messaging does. Nor does email afford the conveyance of subtleties of
tone, intent, or mood possible with face-to-face communication. Understanding
how these affordances and constraints of specific technologies influence what
teachers do in their classrooms is not straightforward and may require rethinking
teacher education and teacher professional development.
Social and contextual factors also complicate the
relationships between teaching and technology. Social and institutional
contexts are often unsupportive of teachers’ efforts to integrate technology
use into their work. Teachers often have inadequate (or inappropriate)
experience with using digital technologies for teaching and learning. Many teachers
earned degrees at a time when educational technology was at a very different
stage of development than it is today. It is, thus, not surprising that they do
not consider themselves sufficiently prepared to use technology in the
classroom and often do not appreciate its value or relevance to teaching
and learning. Acquiring a new knowledge base and skill set can be challenging,
particularly if it is a time-intensive activity that must fit into a busy
schedule. Moreover, this knowledge is unlikely to be used unless teachers can
conceive of technology uses that are consistent with their existing pedagogical
beliefs (Ertmer, 2005). Furthermore, teachers have often been provided with inadequate
training for this task. Many approaches to teachers’ professional development
offer a one-size-fits-all approach to technology integration when, in fact,
teachers operate in diverse contexts of teaching and learning.
An Approach to Thinking
About Technology Integration
Faced with these challenges, how can teachers integrate
technology into their teaching? An approach is needed that treats teaching as
an interaction between what teachers know and how they apply what they know in
the unique circumstances or contexts within their classrooms. There is no “one
best way” to integrate technology into curriculum. Rather, integration efforts
should be creatively designed or structured for
particular subject matter ideas in specific classroom contexts. Honoring
the idea that teaching with technology is a complex, ill-structured task, we
propose that understanding approaches to successful technology integration
requires educators to develop new ways of comprehending and accommodating this
At the heart of good teaching with technology are three core
components: content, pedagogy, and technology, plus the relationships among and
between them. The interactions between and among the three components, playing
out differently across diverse contexts, account for the wide variations seen
in the extent and quality of educational technology integration. These three
knowledge bases (content, pedagogy, and technology) form the core of the technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (TPACK)
framework. An overview of the framework is provided in the following section,
though more detailed descriptions may be found elsewhere (e.g., Koehler &
2008; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). This perspective is consistent with that of
other researchers and approaches that have attempted to extend Shulman’s idea
of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) to include educational technology. (A
comprehensive list of such approaches can be found at
The TPACK Framework
The TPACK framework builds on Shulman’s (1987, 1986)
descriptions of PCK to describe how teachers’
understanding of educational technologies and PCK interact with one another to
produce effective teaching with technology. Other authors have discussed
similar ideas, though often using different labeling schemes. The conception
of TPACK described here has developed over time and through a
series of publications, with the most complete descriptions of the framework
found in Mishra and Koehler (2006) and Koehler and Mishra (2008).
In this model (see Figure 1), there are three main
components of teachers’ knowledge: content, pedagogy, and technology. Equally
important to the model are the interactions between and among these bodies of
knowledge, represented as PCK, TCK (technological content knowledge), TPK (technological
pedagogicalknowledge), and TPACK.
Figure 1. The TPACK framework and its knowledge components.
Content knowledge (CK) is teachers’ knowledge about the
subject matter to be learned or taught. The content to be covered in middle
school science or history is different from the content to be covered in an
undergraduate course on art appreciation or a graduate seminar on astrophysics.
Knowledge of content is of critical importance for teachers. As Shulman (1986)
noted, this knowledge would include knowledge of concepts, theories, ideas,
organizational frameworks, knowledge of evidence and proof, as well as
established practices and approaches toward developing such knowledge.
Knowledge and the nature of inquiry differ greatly between fields, and teachers
should understand the deeper knowledge fundamentals of the disciplines in which
they teach. In the case of science, for example, this would include knowledge
of scientific facts and theories, the scientific method, and evidence-based
reasoning. In the case of art appreciation, such knowledge would include
knowledge of art history, famous paintings, sculptures, artists and their
historical contexts, as well as knowledge of aesthetic and psychological
theories for evaluating art.
The cost of not having a comprehensive base of content
knowledge can be prohibitive; for example, students can receive incorrect
information and develop misconceptions about the content area (National
Research Council, 2000; Pfundt, & Duit, 2000). Yet content knowledge, in
and of itself, is an ill-structured domain, and as the culture wars (Zimmerman,
2002), the Great Books controversies (Bloom, 1987; Casement, 1997; Levine,
1996), and court battles over the teaching of evolution (Pennock, 2001)
demonstrate, issues relating to curriculum content can be areas of significant
contention and disagreement.
Pedagogical knowledge (PK) is teachers’ deep knowledge about
the processes and practices or methods of teaching and learning. They
encompass, among other things, overall educational purposes, values, and aims.
This generic form of knowledge applies to understanding how students learn,
general classroom management skills, lesson planning, and student
assessment. It includes knowledge about
techniques or methods used in the classroom; the nature of the target audience;
and strategies for evaluating student understanding. A teacher with deep
pedagogical knowledge understands how students construct knowledge and acquire
skills and how they develop habits of mind and positive dispositions toward
learning. As such, pedagogical knowledge requires an understanding of
cognitive, social, and developmental theories of learning and how they apply to
students in the classroom.
Pedagogical Content Knowledge
PCK is consistent with and similar to Shulman’s idea of
knowledge of pedagogy that is applicable to the teaching of specific content.
Central to Shulman’s conceptualization of PCK is the notion of the transformation
of the subject matter for teaching. Specifically, according to Shulman (1986),
this transformation occurs as the teacher interprets the subject matter, finds
multiple ways to represent it, and adapts and tailors the instructional
materials to alternative conceptions and students’ prior knowledge. PCK covers
the core business of teaching, learning, curriculum, assessment and reporting,
such as the conditions that promote learning and the links among curriculum,
assessment, and pedagogy. An awareness of common misconceptions and ways of
looking at them, the importance of forging connections among different
content-based ideas, students’ prior knowledge, alternative teaching strategies,
and the flexibility that comes from exploring alternative ways of looking at
the same idea or problem are all essential for effective teaching.
Technology knowledge (TK) is always in a state of flux—more
so than the other two core knowledge domains in the TPACK framework (pedagogy
and content). Thus, defining it is notoriously difficult. Any definition of
technology knowledge is in danger of becoming outdated by the time this text
has been published. That said, certain
ways of thinking about and working with technology can apply to all technology
tools and resources.
The definition of TK used in the TPACK framework is close to
that of Fluency of Information Technology (FITness), as proposed by the
Committee of Information Technology Literacy of the National Research Council
(NRC, 1999). They argue that FITness goes beyond traditional notions of
computer literacy to require that persons understand information technology
broadly enough to apply it productively at work and in their everyday lives, to
recognize when information technology can assist or impede the achievement of a
goal, and to continually adapt to changes in information technology. FITness,
therefore, requires a deeper, more essential understanding and mastery of
information technology for information processing, communication, and problem
solving than does the traditional definition of computer literacy. Acquiring TK
in this manner enables a person to accomplish a variety of different tasks
using information technology and to develop different ways of accomplishing a
given task. This conceptualization of TK does not posit an “end state,” but
rather sees it developmentally, as evolving over a lifetime of generative,
open-ended interaction with technology.
Technological Content Knowledge
Technology and content knowledge have a deep
historical relationship. Progress in fields as diverse as medicine, history,
archeology, and physics have coincided with the development of new technologies
that afford the representation and manipulation of data in new and fruitful
ways. Consider Roentgen’s discovery of X-rays or the technique of carbon-14
dating and the influence of these technologies in the fields of medicine and
archeology. Consider also how the advent of the digital computer changed the
nature of physics and mathematics and placed a greater emphasis on the role of
simulation in understanding phenomena. Technological changes have also offered new metaphors for understanding
the world. Viewing the heart as a pump, or the brain as an information-processing
machine are just some of the ways in which technologies have provided new
perspectives for understanding phenomena. These representational and metaphorical connections are not superficial.
They often have led to fundamental changes in the natures of the disciplines.
Understanding the impact of technology on the practices and
knowledge of a given discipline is critical to developing appropriate
technological tools for educational purposes. The choice of technologies
affords and constrains the types of content ideas that can be taught. Likewise,
certain content decisions can limit the types of technologies that can be used.
Technology can constrain the types of possible representations, but also can
afford the construction of newer and more varied representations. Furthermore, technological tools can provide
a greater degree of flexibility in navigating across these representations.
TCK, then, is an understanding of the manner in which
technology and content influence and constrain one another. Teachers need to
master more than the subject matter they teach; they must also have a deep
understanding of the manner in which the subject matter (or the kinds of
representations that can be constructed) can be changed by the application of
particular technologies. Teachers need to understand which specific
technologies are best suited for addressing subject-matter learning in their
domains and how the content dictates or perhaps even changes the technology—or
Technological Pedagogical Knowledge
TPK is an
understanding of how teaching and learning can change when particular
technologies are used in particular ways. This includes knowing the pedagogical
affordances and constraints of a range of technological tools as they relate to
disciplinarily and developmentally appropriate pedagogical designs and
strategies. To build TPK, a deeper understanding of the constraints and
affordances of technologies and the disciplinary contexts within which they
function is needed.
For example, consider how whiteboards may be used in
classrooms. Because a whiteboard is
typically immobile, visible to many, and easily editable, its uses in
classrooms are presupposed. Thus, the whiteboard is usually placed at the front
of the classroom and is controlled by the teacher. This location imposes a
particular physical order in the classroom by determining the placement of
tables and chairs and framing the nature of student-teacher interaction, since
students often can use it only when called upon by the teacher. However, it
would be incorrect to say that there is only one way in which whiteboards can
be used. One has only to compare the use of a whiteboard in a brainstorming
meeting in an advertising agency setting to see a rather different use of this
technology. In such a setting, the whiteboard is not under the purview of a
single individual. It can be used by anybody in the group, and it becomes the
focal point around which discussion and the negotiation/construction of meaning
occurs. An understanding of the affordances of technology and how they can be
leveraged differently according to changes in context and purposes is an
important part of understanding TPK.
TPK becomes particularly important because most popular
software programs are not designed for educational purposes. Software programs
such as the Microsoft Office Suite (Word, PowerPoint, Excel, Entourage, and MSN
Messenger) are usually designed for business environments. Web-based
technologies such as blogs or podcasts are designed for purposes of entertainment,
communication, and social networking. Teachers need to reject functional
fixedness (Duncker, 1945) and develop skills to look beyond most common uses
for technologies, reconfiguring them for customized pedagogical purposes. Thus,
TPK requires a forward-looking, creative, and open-minded seeking of technology
use, not for its own sake but for the sake of advancing student learning and
Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge
TPACK is an emergent form of knowledge that goes beyond all
three “core” components (content, pedagogy, and technology). Technological
pedagogical content knowledge is an understanding that emerges from
interactions among content, pedagogy, and technology knowledge. Underlying
truly meaningful and deeply skilled teaching with technology, TPACK is
different from knowledge of all three concepts individually. Instead, TPACK is
the basis of effective teaching with technology, requiring an understanding of
the representation of concepts using technologies; pedagogical techniques that
use technologies in constructive ways to teach content; knowledge of what makes
concepts difficult or easy to learn and how technology can help redress some of
the problems that students face; knowledge of students’ prior knowledge and
theories of epistemology; and knowledge of how technologies can be used to
build on existing knowledge to develop new epistemologies or strengthen old
By simultaneously integrating knowledge of technology,
pedagogy and content, expert teachers bring
TPACK into play any time they teach. Each situation presented to teachers is a unique
combination of these three factors, and accordingly, there is no single
technological solution that applies for every teacher, every course, or every
view of teaching. Rather, solutions lie in the ability of a teacher to flexibly
navigate the spaces defined by the three elements of content, pedagogy, and
technology and the complex interactions among these elements in specific
contexts. Ignoring the complexity inherent in each knowledge component or the
complexities of the relationships among the components can lead to
oversimplified solutions or failure. Thus, teachers need to develop fluency and
cognitive flexibility not just in each of the key domains (T, P, and C), but
also in the manner in which these domains and contextual parameters
interrelate, so that they can construct effective solutions. This is the kind
of deep, flexible, pragmatic, and nuanced understanding of teaching with technology
we involved in considering TPACK as a professional knowledge construct.
The act of
seeing technology, pedagogy, and content as three interrelated knowledge bases
is not straightforward. As said before,
This compensation is most evident whenever using a new
educational technology suddenly forces teachers to confront basic educational
issues and reconstruct the dynamic equilibrium among all three elements. This
view inverts the conventional perspective that pedagogical goals and
technologies are derived from content area curricula. Things are rarely that
simple, particularly when newer technologies are employed. The introduction of
the Internet, for example – particularly the rise of online learning – is an
example of the arrival of a technology that forced educators to think about
core pedagogical issues, such as how to represent content on the Web and how to
connect students with subject matter and with one another (Peruski &
… separating the three components
(content, pedagogy, and technology) … is an analytic act and one that is
difficult to tease out in practice. In actuality, these components exist in a
state of dynamic equilibrium or, as the philosopher Kuhn (1977) said in a
different context, in a state of ‘‘essential tension’’…. Viewing any of these
components in isolation from the others represents a real disservice to good
teaching. Teaching and learning with technology exist in a dynamic
transactional relationship (Bruce, 1997; Dewey & Bentley, 1949; Rosenblatt,
1978) between the three components in our framework; a change in any one of the
factors has to be ‘‘compensated’’ by changes in the other two.
(Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1029)
Teaching with technology is a difficult thing to do well.
The TPACK framework suggests that content, pedagogy, technology, and
teaching/learning contexts have roles to play individually and together.
Teaching successfully with technology requires continually creating,
maintaining, and re-establishing a dynamic equilibrium among all components. It
is worth noting that a range of factors influences how this equilibrium is
Implications of the TPACK Framework
We have argued that teaching is a complex, ill-structured
domain. Underlying this complexity, however, are three key components of
teacher knowledge: understanding of content, understanding of teaching, and
understanding of technology. The complexity of technology integration comes
from an appreciation of the rich connections of knowledge among these three
components and the complex ways in which these are applied in multifaceted and
dynamic classroom contexts.
Since the late 1960’s a strand of educational research has
aimed at understanding and explaining “how and why the observable activities of
teachers’ professional lives take on the forms and functions they do” (Clark
& Petersen, 1986, p. 255; Jackson, 1968). A primary goal of this research
is to understand the relationships between two key domains: (a) teacher thought
processes and knowledge and (b) teachers’ actions and their observable effects.
The current work on the TPACK framework seeks to extend this tradition of
research and scholarship by bringing technology integration into the kinds of
knowledge that teachers need to consider when teaching. The TPACK framework
seeks to assist the development of better techniques for discovering and
describing how technology-related professional knowledge is implemented and
instantiated in practice. By better describing the types of knowledge teachers
need (in the form of content, pedagogy, technology, contexts and their
interactions), educators are in a better position to understand the variance in
levels of technology integration occurring.
In addition, the TPACK framework offers several
possibilities for promoting research in teacher education, teacher professional
development, and teachers’ use of technology. It offers options for looking at
a complex phenomenon like technology integration in ways that are now amenable
to analysis and development. Moreover, it allows teachers, researchers, and
teacher educators to move beyond oversimplified approaches that treat
technology as an “add-on” instead to focus again, and in a more ecological way,
upon the connections among technology, content, and pedagogy as they play out
in classroom contexts.
Bloom, A. (1987). The closing of the American mind: How higher education has failed
democracy and impoverished the souls of today's students. New York: Simon
Bromley, H. (1998). Introduction:
Data-driven democracy? Social assessment of educational computing. In H.
Bromley & M. Apple (Eds.), Education,
technology, power (pp. 1-28). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Bruce, B. C. (1993). Innovation and social
change. In B. C. Bruce, J. K. Peyton, & T. Batson (Eds.), Network-based classrooms (pp. 9-32).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bruce, B. C. (1997). Literacy technologies:
What stance should we take? Journal of
Literacy Research, 29(2), 289-309.
Bruce, B. C., & Hogan, M. C. (1998).
The disappearance of technology: Toward an ecological model of literacy. In D.
Reinking, M. McKenna, L. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a
post-typographic world (pp. 269-281). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Casement, W. (1997). The great canon controversy: The battle of the books in higher
education. Somerset, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. (1986).
Teachers' thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.; pp. 255-296). New York:
Dewey, J., & Bentley, A.F. (1949). Knowing and the known. Boston: Beacon.
Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(5), 1-110.
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical
beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration. Educational Technology, Research and
Development, 53(4), 25-39.
Glaser. R. (1984). Education and thinking:
The role of knowledge. American
Psychology, 39(2), 93-104.
Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in the classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2008).
Introducing TPCK. AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), The handbook of technological pedagogical
content knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 3-29). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Kuhn, T. (1977). The essential tension. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago
Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J.G. (1986).
The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 75-95.
Levine, L. W. (1996). The opening of the American mind. Canons, culture, and history. Boston: Beacon Press.
Mishra, P., Spiro, R.J., & Feltovich,
P.J. (1996). Technology, representation, and cognition: The prefiguring of
knowledge in cognitive flexibility hypertexts. In H. van Oostendorp & A. de
Mul (Eds.), Cognitive aspects of
electronic text processing (pp. 287-305). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2007).
Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK): Confronting the wicked
problems of teaching with technology. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information
Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2007 (pp.
2214-2226). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006).
Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating
technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers
College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
National Research Council. (1999). Being fluent with information technology
literacy. Computer science and telecommunications board commission on physical
sciences, mathematics, and applications. Washington, DC: National Academy
National Research Council. (2000) How people learn: Brain, mind, experience,
and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Papert, S. (1980): Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York: Basic
Pennock, R. (2001). Intelligent design creationism and its critics: Philosophical,
theological & scientific perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Peruski, L., & Mishra, P. (2004). Webs
of activity in online course design and teaching. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 12(1), 37-49.
Pfundt, H., & Duit, R. (2000). Bibliography: Student's alternative
frameworks and science education (5th ed.).
Kiel, Germany: University of Kiel.
Putnam, R.T., & Borko, H. (2000). What
do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher
learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1),
Rosenblatt, L.M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The
transactional theory of literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand:
Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and
teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
Simon, H. (1969). Sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Spiro, R.J., & Jehng, J.-Ch. (1990),
Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear
and mutlidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R.
Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia:
Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 163-204). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Zimmerman, J. (2002). Whose America? Culture wars in the public schools. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
The authors contributed equally to this work. We rotate order of authorship in our writing.
Matthew J. Koehler
Michigan State University
Michigan State University