STUDENT'S EVALUATION OF WEB-BASED LEARNING

TECHNOLOGIES IN A HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION

COURSE

Dina Goren-Bar

Department of Information Systems Engineering, Faculty of Engineering Sciences

Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, P.O.Box 653, Beer-Sheva, 84105, Israel

Keywords: web-based learning, evaluation

Abstract: The hum

an-computer interface (HCI) field is constantly changing and designers are challenged to develop

simple interactive systems implemented through sophisticated technology. At Ben-Gurion University, the

introductory HCI course was originally taught in a face-to-face mode and covered theoretical knowledge on

HCI theories, principles and design, and practical experience in designing and evaluating websites. When it

became apparent from students' course evaluations that they expected the HCI course to provide them with

more hands-on experience with different types of interaction, communication devices, and design dilemmas,

the course was redesigned. The new course combines face-to-face lessons, e-learning sessions and web-

based collaborative projects. While there is still room for improvement, student's evaluations show

significant increase in satisfaction with the course.

1 BACKGROUND

The Human Computer Interaction course is taught

during the third year of a four-year program (8

semesters) in Information Systems Engineering at

Ben-Gurion University of the Negev

(http://www.ise.bgu.ac.il). The ISE curriculum is

structured to provide students with the concepts and

tools that form the fundamental base of knowledge

essential to computer information systems

professionals in today's modern technological

environment. Graduates of the ISE Department are

provided with the tools to perform diverse tasks in

the IS field such as specifying the information needs

of users and managers in organizations; performing

feasibility studies of information systems; analyzing

and designing software, data bases and user

interfaces; and developing prototype systems by

application of appropriate analysis and design

methodologies and CASE tools. Other tasks include

programming, implementation, maintenance and

administration of information systems.

Due to constant changes in the field, human-

com

puter interface designers are confronted with the

development of easier interactive systems based on

sophisticated technology. Unlike the common

courses taught in computer science and information

systems, which are topic oriented, HCI is an

interdisciplinary field. It requires the understanding

of theories and principles of design and development

of interactive systems through different

technologies. It demands also awareness to

psychological and cognitive sciences and evaluation

issues, as well as practical development skills to

implement interfaces to work properly with a variety

of users.

For several years we taught a Human Computer

Interacti

on Introductory course in a face-to-face

mode. The course provided theoretical knowledge

on HCI theories, principles and design topics and

practical experience web sites design and evaluation.

The objectives of the face-t

o-face course were:

 Learn

basic concepts, theories and approaches

in the HCI field.

 To de

velop a design point of view. To acquire

the necessary skills to analyze interaction

problems on a technical, a cognitive, and a

functional basis and to propose plausible

improvements based on practical guidelines,

theories and research findings.

 Devel

oping a framework for orderly thinking

in formulating, clarifying, implementing and

evaluating HCI designs for interactive

systems.

206

Goren-Bar D. (2005).

STUDENT’S EVALUATION OF WEB-BASED LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES IN A HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION COURSE.

In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, pages 206-212

 SciTePress

 Be familiar with frontier technologies, tools

and methodologies to implement and evaluate

user interfaces for different interactive

systems using the variety of tools and

methods that were presented during the

course.

The course covered the following topics:

 Principles and theories of the human-

computer interactive systems

 Characteristics of the human information

processing

 User Centered Design and Evaluation

approaches, methodologies and tools for HCI

 Software architectures and standards for user

interfaces

 Interaction Styles and Design topics for web-

based systems

 Designing and developing interfaces for

diverse input and output devices

 Supporting user errors – Design issues,

documentation, help and tutorials

 Advanced topics – CSCW, e-learning, search

and visualization

Students submitted three assignments during the

course. The first assignment focused on the

evaluation of an existent website. The second

assignment required the design of a new website

applying the principles of design acquired during the

course. In this assignment students supplied the

rational for designing the new website and

performed a "hands on" exercise using standard

development tools (visual basic, Java script,

HTML). The third assignment required the

assessment of the new website (performed in the

second assignment) implementing methodologies of

usability testing. Students selected a partner to

perform the assignments.

Students attended classes once a week. During

the classes the tutor (a senior staff member) taught

the course topics assisted by PowerPoint

presentations. Students' interaction with the lecturer

was mainly through questions asked during the

class. A course assistant (a graduate student) was

available during reception hours. The assistant

helped students according to students' initiative.

The course had an additional website. The

website included: learning materials (presentations),

the syllabus and assignments instructions.

Annual students' evaluations revealed that they

expected from the HCI course to provide them with

more hands-on experience on different kinds of

interaction, communication devices and design

dilemmas than those acquired during the course.

Besides, they expected the course to be more

"interesting". During interviews conducted with

volunteer students they expressed their willingness

to experience new tools and modes of interaction in

addition to those taught during the course, such as

collaborative applications and e-learning.

We decided to redesign the Human Computer

Interaction introductory course intending to meet

these expectations.

2 THE NEW COURSE

The new Human Computer Interaction introductory

(HCI 2002/3) course was taught at the Information

Systems Engineering Department in Ben-Gurion

University. The course objectives and topics were

the same as those in the former course (see prior

section). The HCI 2002/3 course had a new major

improvement; the addition of a website which

included a collaborative workspace that allowed the

students to interact with other fellow students and

the course staff. The course site enabled the students

to experience different kinds of interactions with

various technologies such as e-learning and

collaborative environment; to practice the theoretical

principles and the technology involved; to design

prototype systems implementing both their personal

experience and the theoretical and technical

knowledge acquired during the course. The course

combined three kinds of learning methodic: (1) face

to face lessons; (2) web-based lessons and (3) web-

based design and collaborative evaluation projects.

A hundred and fifty students have participated in

this course.

We will describe the implementation of web-

based lessons and collaborative technologies in the

HCI 2002/3 course and present the students'

evaluation results.

2.1 Implementation of interactive

lessons in the HCI 2002 course

The HCI 2002/3 course was delivered in the Mixed

Mode (Harasim, 2000a, 2000b) (where students

participated in F2F (face to face) lectures and

Interactive Distance Learning techniques. The

Mixed Mode of web-based learning employs

networking as significant portion of a traditional

classroom or distance course. It is distinguished

from the adjunct mode (which typically refers to the

use of the network as an enhancement but not as a

required or graded component of course activity) by

the fact that networking is fully integrated into the

curriculum. The networking activities constitute a

regular part of the course and are included on the

course grade. Mixed mode learning has many

variations. It may be used for one or more major

STUDENT'S EVALUATION OF WEB-BASED LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES IN A HUMAN-COMPUTER

INTERACTION COURSE

207

activities in a traditional face-to-face or distance

mode course, such as small group discussions,

seminars, and group projects. An example is an

undergraduate course in Communication at Simon

Fraser University, Canada

(

http://www.sfu.ca/index3.htm) that uses six weeks

of a thirteen-week course for online student-led

seminars; the other seven weeks are held as face-to-

face lectures and tutorials. The use of online

seminars in a face-to-face class is a common

application of mixed mode delivery. Usually, online

seminars enable all students to participate,

something impossible in a small face-to-face

classroom, and certainly impossible in large

undergraduate classes.

Harasim (2000) reported from data collected in

the Virtual-U project (http://virtual-u.cs.sfu.ca/

vuweb.new/vuproduct.html) that in mixed mode

courses, the level of active student participation and

interaction is significant.

As in the Communications course held at Fraser

University (Ramiller, 2002), in the new HCI 2002/3

course six weeks of a thirteen-week course were

conducted as web-based lessons + virtual

collaborative projects; the other seven weeks were

held as face-to-face lectures and tutorials.

Students interacted on a one-to-one basis on the

interactive lessons in the course site. The course had

six interactive lessons. Six topics, one each week,

were learned in each interactive lesson. Students

accessed the interactive lesson through the course

website. In each interactive lesson a new topic was

presented and students were requested to perform

various tasks and to answer questions based on the

studied topic. For each topic, the students were

required to read relevant articles, book chapters or

web material linked through the interactive lesson.

The objective was to provide the students with basic

knowledge and understanding on the concepts and

ideas discussed during the interactive lessons.

The overall length of an interactive lesson was

approx. 30 minutes. However, to complete all the

tasks, usually students started an e-lesson and

stopped after a while. It was not allowed to

introduce changes to completed tasks (to diminish

plagiarism). Each time a student came back to the

same lesson s/he was able to continue from the place

they stopped.

The topics learned through the interactive

lessons were assessed with diverse techniques.

Students defined concepts, searched for relevant

examples and uploaded their URL, proposed their

own solutions and answered open and multiple-

choice questions. All the user data and behavior

during the interactive lesson was recorded. The

course assistant checked the open questions, while

closed questions were checked automatically,

rendering a combined grade for each lesson. Finally

each student got a mark for all the interactive

lessons.

Students were required to fill a web-based

feedback questionnaire for each lesson. This task

was voluntary. We encouraged students to fill it;

however, no grades were given for this task in order

not to bias results.

After finishing the lesson the student got an

email confirming that all the tasks on that lesson

were submitted. After grading the whole lesson, an

automatic mail was sent to the student with the

corresponding grade.

2.2 Implementation of Collaborative

Assignments in the HCI 2002/3

course

The standard one to one interaction between user

and computer has been challenged during the last

years by the development of distributed and

collaborative applications. Collaborative learning is

defined as a learning process that emphasizes

cooperative efforts among faculty and students. It

stresses active participation and interaction by both,

students and instructors (Bouton. & Garth, 1983;

Bruffee, 1984).

The collaborative learning approach is

considered an interactive approach (Alavi, 1994). It

can be treated as a method that encourages students

at various performance levels to work together

toward a common goal (Johnson, 1981; Johnson &

Johnson, 1975). Harasim (1990) indicates that

“Collaborative learning” is fundamentally different

from the traditional “direct-transfer” or “one-way

knowledge transmission” model in which the

instructor is the only source of knowledge or skills.

In collaborative learning, instruction is learner-

centered rather than teacher-centered and knowledge

is viewed as a social effort, facilitated by peer

interaction, evaluation and cooperation. Therefore,

the role of the teacher changes from the transferring

of knowledge to students to being a facilitator in the

construction of the student's own knowledge (Hiltz

& Benbunan-Fich, 1997).

Asynchronous Learning Network (ALN’s) is a

teaching and learning environment located within a

Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) system

designed for anytime/anyplace use through computer

networks (Hiltz, 1994; Hiltz & Wellman, 1997). The

asynchronous nature of the interaction leads to new

paradigms for teaching and learning. They state that

the most important element for an ALN learning

environment that supports collaborative learning and

relates to the “social construction” of an interaction

ICEIS 2005 - SPECIAL SESSION ON EFFICACY OF E-LEARNING SYSTEMS

208

environment is the appropriate expectation and

norms of interactions. In particular, the instructor

role must be re-conceptualized. The instructor needs

to encourage students to look upon their interaction

with their peers as valuable resources for learning,

rather than focusing on memorizing lecture-type

material presented by an instructor.

Ramiller (2002) points out that the use of a

project assignment helps to promote active learning

through hands-on engagement within a collaborative

learning context. He implemented an innovative

approach, the Virtual Interactive Project (VIP) that

explores the middle ground between field projects

and text-based projects in an effort to achieve some

of the advantages of both. The project evolved

through web-based and email interaction between

students and a "virtual client" representing the firm

in the case.

Beyond the common principles, which guide the

development of all human computer interfaces,

specific principles involve the development of the

same interfaces to enable collaboration through

different devices. However, most of the students

have no prior experience with those technologies as

users. We intended to provide the students with the

experience of cyber-work in the web with different

tools.

We implemented an Asynchronous Learning

Network (ALN’s) as a teaching and learning

environment, which included e-mail, public

conference (forum) and private conference facilities

(suitable for multiple group projects) (Clark, 2000,

Harrasim, 1991; Lehtinen et al., 2000) to enable

active collaboration of several group members

participating in the same assignment. All the

interactions within the forums were saved in the

course database.

The course population (150 students) was

divided into 15 groups of 5 pairs of students each

one (ten students in each group). The students

performed two collaborative assignments, with the

same structure but on different topics. Students had

five weeks to elaborate each one of the two

collaborative assignments and perform all tasks. In

the first assignment, each group received a

description of a different desired system or tool. The

objective of the first assignment was experiencing

with the phases of a user centered design project.

Each phase was assigned to one pair of students. The

first pair was responsible for performing the

exploration phase; the second pair gathered and

analyzed the user requirements. The third pair was in

charge of the design and functionality of the system.

The forth pair defined the usability testing based on

Nielsen’s usability parameters (Nielsen, 1993). The

last pair prepared a comprehensive presentation that

summarized all the pairs’ activities and products and

presented it to the class in a face-to-face meeting.

The objective of the second assignment was to

create an interactive lesson on the web. The

assignment was divided into 5 tasks were each team

was in charge of a different task, same as in the first

collaborative assignment. The assignment’s tasks

were either technical such as: building a DB,

developing a website or code writing for the

interactive lesson or conceptual tasks e.g.

exploration, bibliography review, writing and

designing the lessons’ content. Each group prepared

an interactive lesson on a different subject.

In addition, it was clearly emphasized by the

course instructors that the group members must

collaborate, as the product of one task will act as a

building block for the following tasks.

To facilitate communication between students,

the course website interface was developed in

Hebrew. In order to enable collaboration between

the group members, each group was provided with a

workspace within the course site. At the group

workspace a full description of the project was

available. All students in the same group had to be

acquainted with all the subtasks of the assignment.

For each one of the two group assignments, each

pair within the group had to select a task from the

list of available tasks, via the collaborative

environment. Students had two roles: as sub-task

leader for one week, and as other students' tasks

reviewer for the rest of the time. While performing

as subtask leaders, students work in small teams,

with one peer, to prepare and present the topic,

moderate the discussion for a week and upload a

written assignment on their sub-task. When a

document was uploaded all the members of the

group received an automatic message from the

system including the name of the team, which

submitted a file, and the name of the file. Students

uploaded articles, pictures, sound files, forms and

excel sheets among others. Other students had to

read and review the files and comment on them.

There was no limitation on the number of working

files each subtask team could upload. However, at

the submission deadline, just one integrated file was

permitted for each subtask.

STUDENT'S EVALUATION OF WEB-BASED LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES IN A HUMAN-COMPUTER

INTERACTION COURSE

209

3 STUDENTS EVALUATION OF

THE HCI 2002/3 COURSE

TEACHING METHODOLOGIES

3.2 Methodology

After each lesson students were requested to fill an

online feedback form at the course website. The

questionnaire scale range is: 1 (totally disagree) - 5

(totally agree). Form filling was encouraged but

voluntary. In addition, a face-to face open feedback

discussion was conducted at the end of the two

collaborative assignments students' presentations.

3.1 Goals and Rationale

The purpose of the evaluation was to test students'

satisfaction from the different teaching

methodologies implemented in the course. We

decided to test mainly students' preferences, a

subjective measurement, because we had no

influence on their opinion. Moreover, being this

course one with many tasks to perform each week,

requiring considerable student's responsibility, this

fact may have a negative influence on student's

course evaluation. We opted for this unfavorable

situation instead of relying on grades evaluation.

Basing our evaluation on course grades may have

been unintentionally biased, considering that those

who assigned the grades are the course teaching

staff.

The following is a summary of the feedback

questionnaire. The total number of questionnaires

filled was 678.

The average participation per lesson type is the

mean rate of voluntary evaluation form- filling

relative to the total number of students enrolled in

the course (150) not related to other types of lessons.

Table 1 show that students rated the e-learning

sessions three times more than the F2F lessons and

the collaborative learning.

We expected the students to have different

preferences towards the three types of lessons (see

Table 2). We grouped the negative evaluations (1-2)

and the positive ones (4+5). Overall answers to all

the questionnaires were 8126 (approx. 677*12). We

performed Chi2 test of association. We found that

students preferred the F2F lessons significantly more

than expected, compared to the e-learning lessons

(Chi2 26.88, df= 4, p<0.001). However when we

analyze all the rates given to the e-lessons alone,

most of the students significantly preferred to study

HCI topics through web based learning (Chi2 for

goodness of fit test= 247.7848, df=2, p< .001) .

Nevertheless we compared the final grades

distribution from this course with former ones (two

years ago) and found no significant difference.

Students read the same bibliography (in the mixed

model course they read added references). The grade

components were different; therefore no other

comparison was possible.

This comparison was preformed as a validity

test. Having similar marks, the question remains:

What did the students preferred? How did they

evaluate the different learning experiences they got?

And, did they enjoy the learning process more?

Table 1: Average Percentage of Evaluation Form filling by Lesson Type

Lesson Type

Average

participation per

lesson type

Relative percentage of

answers per

all feedbacks (678)

F2F Lessons 21.50% 19.02%

Interactive Lessons 66.00% 73.04%

Collaborative Lessons 18.00% 7.94%

ICEIS 2005 - SPECIAL SESSION ON EFFICACY OF E-LEARNING SYSTEMS

210

Table 2: Students' evaluation toward the three types of lessons.

Evaluation F2F

lessons

Interactive

Lessons

Collaboration

lessons

Total

answers

Disagree (1-2) 315 1543 160 2018

Neutral (3) 480 1879 202 2561

Agree (4-5) 753 2518 276 3547

Total Answers 1548 5940 638 8126

Chi2 = 26.88450469, df= 4, p<0.00

4 DISCUSSION AND

CONCLUSIONS

The revised HCI introductory course for Information

Systems Engineering was first introduced during

winter 2002/3. It combined face-to-face lessons, e-

learning sessions and web-based design

collaborative projects. The philosophy behind the

course was to give the students, besides the domain

knowledge, the opportunity to experience new

technologies by performing practical work through

systems they might design in the future (such as e-

learning and collaborative work).

Student's evaluations showed significant

satisfaction from the new course methods, however,

new methodological and practical problems should

be considered.

First, it is important to mention that this kind of

course requires a considerable effort from the course

academic, administrative and technical staff. The

course involves three phases of development:

preparation, testing and delivery.

All the course material should be prepared in

advance. Besides the presentations for the F2F

lessons, the web lessons require many hours of

preparation. The collaborative environment is a full

development project demanding continuous

technical support before and during the course

delivery.

Web lessons should be tested as well as the

collaborative environment. Communication

difficulties may appear unexpectedly, disturbing the

course schedule.

During the course delivery, the course staff is

engaged many hours with course activities. Students

are active beyond working hours, during weekends

and holidays, expecting from the course staff to

respond in a timely fashion.

Students ranked highly the F2F lessons.

Although this result is based on a relatively small

number of students that voluntarily filled the

students feedback forms (an average number of 32

students graded the F2F lessons), it is corroborated

with the high participation rate in these lessons (no

mandatory assistance was required). The course

presentations were public at the course website;

therefore, it seems that students appreciated the F2F

discussions involving personal and social

interaction. This result should be verified in future

studies with a larger number of students.

One of the most exciting results in this study was

the high degree of voluntary feedback filled up by

the students to the e-learning lessons. Students were

encouraged to do so, however, no grade reward was

accredited. An average of 99 students (from 150)

filled up their feedback to each e-learning lesson.

Moreover, Chi2 for goodness of fit test showed that

more students evaluated these lessons significantly

higher than expected (p< .001).

Student expressed that the course material was

well organized and it was easy to track course

presentations on the web.

A smaller number of students evaluated the

collaborative lessons. There are several possible

reasons for this finding. The first, and most

probable, is that students had an opportunity to give

F2F feedback by the end of each collaborative

assignment presentation lesson. Student expressed

that it was easy to communicate and perform the

required tasks within the virtual environment. The

feedback on the collaborative assignments was that

at the beginning it was hard to accept that they have

to cooperate in order to get the work done. Few

students felt it as "unfair" since dedicated

responsible students should rely on inputs of less

successful ones. During the process the students

realized that the only way to feel more confident

with other's inputs is to be in touch, to give feedback

STUDENT'S EVALUATION OF WEB-BASED LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES IN A HUMAN-COMPUTER

INTERACTION COURSE

211

on each other's documents or outputs and check if

the feedback was reflected in the revised documents.

Few students questioned the need for this kind of

assignment due to its complexity. Other students

replied that in order to succeed in a project in their

workplaces (mostly technological and software

companies) they have to cooperate within their

teams and sometimes with other teams. They stated

that collaborative assignment encouraged individual

thinking as each team is in charge on leading a task

and in addition, each team is committed to the

success of the whole assignment. Another feedback

was on the group structure, students complained that

they were missing the instructor role while other

groups replied that they have nominated a group

chair that was in charge on the timeline and to

encourage the group members. Most of the students

expressed that during the first assignment they

learned how to collaborate and that the second

assignment was easier on this aspect (but more

difficult on the subject matter).

Another possible reason for the low rate of

feedback form-filling on collaborative lessons is that

students gave feedback to each other within the

collaborative environment many times during the

assignment period. They might have felt that they

did their job already.

It is worthy to notice that few students didn't like

the e-learning or the collaborative lessons. This

finding may have two possible implications about

the HCI 2002/3 course. One the one side, the course

does not match all types of students. Some students

may prefer to work alone. For those students the

collaborative assignment may be very difficult. On

the other side, the HCI 2002/3 course is very varied,

enabling students with different learning styles to

perform better in their preferred kind of lesson.

We conclude that the HCI 2002/3 course enabled

students to achieve several goals: to learn theoretical

principles, technologies, development and

evaluation methodologies through the F2F and web-

based lessons as well as practicing the topics learnt

through discussions and implementation within the

collaborative environment. It seems that this kind of

course has many advantages as well as several

drawbacks that should be considered before

adopting the mixed model.

REFERENCES

Alavi, M. 1994. Computer-Mediated Collaborative

Learning: An Empirical Evaluation, MIS Quarterly,

Vol. 18, No. 2 159-174.

Bouton, C. & Garth, R.Y. (Eds.) 1983. Learning in

Groups, New Directions in Teaching and Learning,

No. 14, Jossey-Bass Inc., San Francisco, CA.

Bruffee, K. A. 1984. Background and history to

collaborative learning in American college, College

English, Vol. 46, No. 7 635-652.

Clark, J. 2000. Collaboration Tools in Online Learning

Environments http://www.aln.org/alnweb/

magazine/Vol4_issue1/Clark.htm.

Harasim, L. Ed. 1990. On-line Education: Perspective on

a new medium, Praeger/Greenwood, New York, NY.

Harasim, L. 1991. Designs and tools to augment

collaboration in computerized conferencing systems,

Proceedings of the Hawaiian International

Conference on Systems Science, Vol. 5 379-385.

Harasim, L. 2000a. The Virtual University: A State of the

Art in Advances in Computers, Book Series, Vol. 54,

Academic Press.

Harasim, L. 2000b.

Shift Happens: Online Education as a

New Paradigm in Learning

, Internet and Higher

Education: Special Issue, Vol. 3, No. 1. Elsevier

Science, UK 41-61.

Hiltz, R. 1994. The virtual classroom: Learning without

limits via computer networks, Human-Computer

Interaction Series.: Ablex Publishing Corp. New

Jersey .

Hiltz, S.R. and Benbunan-Fich, R. 1997. Supporting

Collaborative in Asynchronous Learning Network,

invited keynote address for the UNESCO/ Open

University Symposium on Virtual Learning

Environment and the Role of the Teacher, NJ Inst.of

Tech. http://eies.njit.edu/~hiltz/CRProject/unesco.htm.

Hiltz, R. and Wellman, B. 1997. Asynchronous learning

networks as a virtual classroom, Communications of

the ACM, Vol. 40, No.9 44-49.

Johnson, D.W. 1981. Student-student interaction: the

neglected variable in education, Educational

Research, Vol. 10, N.1 5-10.

Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T. 1975. Learning together

and alone: Cooperation, competition and

individualizations, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall,

New Jersey.

Lehtinen, E., Hakkarainen, K., Lipponen, L., Rahikainen,

M., & Muukkonen, H. 2000. Computer Supported

Collaborative Learning: A review, In H. Meijden, R.

Simons, & F. de Jong (Eds.), Computer supported

collaborative learning in primary and secondary

education. Report for the EC, Project 2017, University

of Nijmegen.

www.kas.utu.fi/papers/clnet/

clnetreport.html

1-46.

Nielsen, J. 1993. Usability Engineering, AP Professional.

23-37.

Ramiller, N.C. 2002. The Virtual Interactive Project:

Teaching Analysis and Design Through Narrative and

Drama, Communications of the Association of

Information Systems, Vol. 9, No. 1, July.

ICEIS 2005 - SPECIAL SESSION ON EFFICACY OF E-LEARNING SYSTEMS

212