The results of research conducted on the Decision Support System for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Using YouTube and Recommending the Best Channel as a Learning Media for Informatics Engineering Students with the Weighted Product Method. This stage will include a series of steps needed to design, develop, and evaluate an effective decision support system using the Weighted Product (WP) method of applying the WP method in this study, focusing on determining the weight of criteria such as evaluating user effectiveness and recommendations for determining YouTube channels.
3.2. Weighted Product (WP) Method
At the weighted product method stage, which is carried out by calculating the determination of values, criteria weights, alternative data, weight normalization, vector value s, relative preference value v, and, finally, ranking and analysis on channel evaluation and recommendations, the following steps are conducted:
3.2.1. Determination of Criteria Values and Weights
Before determining the weights, a classification of the level of importance was carried out on a scale of 1 to 5 [
13]. The classification of importance levels used in this study is presented in
Table 3.
In determining the value and weight of the criteria, the following results are obtained. The evaluation criteria for YouTube usage effectiveness, including content relevance, quality of delivery, audiovisual quality, interactivity, frequency of use, access barriers, and impact on understanding, are presented in
Table 4. Furthermore, the criteria values and weights used to evaluate YouTube channel recommendations, such as number of views, subscribers, upload frequency, number of videos, and teacher background, are shown in
Table 5.
Table 4.
Values and weights of YouTube usage effectiveness evaluation criteria.
Table 4.
Values and weights of YouTube usage effectiveness evaluation criteria.
Code | Criteria | Weight | Type | Description |
---|
C1 | Content Relevance | 4 | Benefit | Assess the extent to which the content corresponds to the course topic |
C2 | Quality of Delivery | 4 | Benefit | Measuring the way the material is presented in the video |
C3 | Audiovisual Quality | 3 | Benefit | Assess the clarity of sound and images in supporting learning |
C4 | Interactivity and Engagement | 1 | Benefit | Measure user participation through comments and discussions |
C5 | Frequency of Use | 3 | Benefit | Monitor how often students use YouTube as a learning resource |
C6 | Access Barriers | 2 | Cost | Assess accessibility limitations due to technical or internet factors |
C7 | Impact on Understanding | 5 | Benefit | The main factor in assessing the improvement of student understanding |
Table 5.
YouTube channel recommendation criteria values and weights.
Table 5.
YouTube channel recommendation criteria values and weights.
Code | Criteria | Weight | Type | Description |
---|
C1 | Total Number of Channel Views | 4 | Benefit | Illustrates the popularity and reach of the content |
C2 | Number of Subscribers | 4 | Benefit | Indicates the level of user trust and loyalty |
C3 | Frequency of New Content Upload | 5 | Benefit | Assess the channel’s consistency in providing up-to-date materials |
C4 | Number of Videos Uploaded | 3 | Benefit | Measures the diversity of materials available |
C5 | Background of Teacher/Content Creator | 2 | Benefit | Assess the credibility of the instructor in the academic or industry field |
Determination of alternative data is used as input data, as well as the following alternative data for channel evaluation and recommendations:
The results of questionnaire interviews conducted with 15 students who used YouTube as a learning medium constitute alternative data in this study. Each student was evaluated based on seven criteria. The alternative data obtained from 15 students who used YouTube as a learning medium, along with their evaluation scores based on seven criteria, are presented in
Table 6.
To determine which YouTube channels are most effective as learning media, direct observation was conducted on the 10 YouTube channels most used by Informatics Engineering students. These data were obtained by monitoring student activities and analyzing statistics from the YouTube platform to evaluate the popularity, engagement, and content upload frequency of each channel. The alternative data for YouTube channel recommendations, including values for popularity, engagement, and content consistency of the observed channels, are shown in
Table 7.
3.2.2. Weight Normalization Calculation
To obtain a more proportional value in the calculation, the criteria weights are normalized by dividing each weight by the overall weight, as shown in the following calculation:
Calculation of Normalization Weight Evaluation of the Effectiveness of YouTube Use
= 4 + 4 + 3 + 1 + 3 + 2 + 5 = 22
So that the normalized weight for each criterion is:
= = 0.1818
= = 0.1818
= = 0.1364
= = 0.0455
= = 0.1364
= = 0.0909
= = 0.2273
Calculation of Normalization Weight of Best YouTube Channel Recommendations
= 4 + 4 + 5 + 3 + 2 = 18
So that the normalized weight for each criterion is:
= = 0.2222
= = 0.2222
= = 0.2778
= = 0.1667
= = 0.1111
1
3.2.3. Calculating the s Vector Value
After the weights are normalized, the S vector value is calculated by multiplying the value of each alternative by the normalized weight of the criteria concerned. This value is then used to determine the relative preference value V.
The results of the S vector value evaluation of YouTube usage effectiveness and the best YouTube channel recommendations are presented in
Table 8 and
Table 9, respectively.
(A1) = () () () () () () () = 41.5085
(A2) = () () () () () () () = 37.4739
(A3) = () () () () () () () = 38.2346
(A4) = () () () () () () () = 38.9273
(A5) = () () () () () () () = 41.5085
(A6) = () () () () () () () = 37.0452
(A7) = () () () () () () () = 41.5085
(A8) = () () () () () () () = 28.8122
(A9) = () () () () () () () = 37.0452
(A10) = () () () () () () () = 37.6686
(A11) = () () () () () () () = 35.4508
(A12) = () () () () () () () = 41.3524
(A13) = () () () () () () () = 39.8380
(A14) = () () () () () () () = 32.9815
(A15) = () () () () () () () = 39.8380
= 569.1663
Table 8.
Results of S vector value evaluation of effectiveness of YouTube usage.
Table 8.
Results of S vector value evaluation of effectiveness of YouTube usage.
Alternative | S Value |
---|
A1 | 41.5085 |
A2 | 37.4739 |
A3 | 38.2346 |
A4 | 38.9273 |
A5 | 41.5085 |
A6 | 37.0452 |
A7 | 41.5085 |
A8 | 28.8122 |
A9 | 37.0452 |
A10 | 37.6686 |
A11 | 35.4508 |
A12 | 41.3254 |
A13 | 39.8380 |
A14 | 32.9815 |
A15 | 39.8380 |
Total | 566.9485 |
(B1) = ()() ()() () = 61.9225
(B2) = ()() ()() () = 58.7255
(B3) = ()() ()() () = 90.9784
(B4) = ()() ()() () = 86.3895
(B5) = ()() ()() () = 67.0512
(B6) = ()() ()() () = 69.3375
(B7) = ()() ()() () = 40.2371
(B8) = ()() ()() () = 81.4005
(B9) = ()() ()() () = 66.4321
(B10) = ()() ()() () = 93.2552
= 715.7293
Table 9.
Results of S vector value of best YouTube channel recommendations.
Table 9.
Results of S vector value of best YouTube channel recommendations.
Alternative | S Value |
---|
B1 | 388.8272 |
B2 | 403.6393 |
B3 | 677.6289 |
B4 | 593.7828 |
B5 | 267.3913 |
B6 | 435.3879 |
B7 | 276.5623 |
B8 | 559.4920 |
B9 | 264.9223 |
B10 | 694.5864 |
Total | 4562.2203 |
3.2.4. Calculating the Relative Preference Value V
After obtaining the S value, the calculation of the relative preference value of V on the evaluation and recommendation is carried out. The results of the relative preference values (V) for YouTube usage effectiveness and the best YouTube channel recommendations are presented in
Table 10 and
Table 11, respectively.
= = 0.0729
= = 0.0658
= = 0.0672
= = 0.0684
= = 0.0729
= = 0.0651
= = 0.0729
= = 0.0506
= = 0.0651
= = 0.0662
= = 0.0623
= = 0.0726
= = 0.0700
= = 0.0579
= = 0.0700
Table 10.
Results of relative preference value V evaluation of effectiveness of YouTube usage.
Table 10.
Results of relative preference value V evaluation of effectiveness of YouTube usage.
Alternative | Value V |
---|
A1 | 0.0729 |
A2 | 0.0658 |
A3 | 0.0672 |
A4 | 0.0684 |
A5 | 0.0729 |
A6 | 0.0651 |
A7 | 0.0729 |
A8 | 0.0506 |
A9 | 0.0651 |
A10 | 0.0662 |
A11 | 0.0623 |
A12 | 0.0726 |
A13 | 0.0700 |
A14 | 0.0579 |
A15 | 0.0700 |
Total | 1 |
= = 0.0865
= = 0.0820
= = 0.1271
= = 0.1207
= = 0.0937
= = 0.0969
= = 0.0562
= = 0.1137
= = 0.0928
= = 0.1303
Table 11.
Results of Relative Preference Values V Best YouTube Channel Recommendations.
Table 11.
Results of Relative Preference Values V Best YouTube Channel Recommendations.
Alternative | Value V |
---|
B1 | 0.0865 |
B2 | 0.0820 |
B3 | 0.1271 |
B4 | 0.1207 |
B5 | 0.0937 |
B6 | 0.0969 |
B7 | 0.0562 |
B8 | 0.1137 |
B9 | 0.0928 |
B10 | 0.1303 |
Total | 1 |
3.2.5. Ranking and Analysis
Based on the V vector value, ranking is done to determine the evaluation and recommendation of YouTube as a learning medium for each student. The higher the V value, the more effective students are in utilizing YouTube as a learning resource.
The ranking results show that students with higher V scores have a greater propensity to learn through YouTube compared to students with lower V scores. Compared to other criteria, Impact on Understanding (C7) has the greatest influence in this calculation. The ranking and evaluation analysis results of YouTube usage effectiveness are presented in
Table 12.
Ranking is done based on the V value to determine how effective each YouTube channel is in helping students learn. A higher V-value indicates that the channel provides useful learning materials for students. The ranking results and analysis of the best YouTube channel recommendations are shown in
Table 13.