COMPARISON BEST VIDEO CONFERENCE FOR LEARNING AND TEACHING ACTIVITIES USING ANALYTIC HIERARHICAL PROCESS

Januponsa Dio Firizqi; Saiful Azhari Muhammad; Richardus Eko Indrajit; Nurul Hidayat; Erick Dazki

doi:10.20884/1.jutif.2022.3.1.138

Januponsa Dio Firizqi Information Technology, Pradita University, Indonesia
Saiful Azhari Muhammad Information Technology, Pradita University, Indonesia
Richardus Eko Indrajit Information Technology, Pradita University, Indonesia
Nurul Hidayat Program Studi Informatika, Fakultas Teknik Universitas Jenderal Soedirman, Indonesia
Erick Dazki Information Technology, Pradita University, Indonesia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20884/1.jutif.2022.3.1.138

Keywords: Analytical Hierarchical Process, Decision making, Video Conference, Teaching Activities

Abstract

During the pandemic, almost all industries have been disrupted, including the education industry. To support the sustainability of the education industry, many institutions use various video conferencing platforms. There are six aspects that need to be considered in choosing a video conference platform: Features provided, Ease of use, security level, bandwidth usage, platform stability and the ability to accommodate the number of participants in a conference room. This study shows how to prioritize these aspects in choosing a video conferencing platform carried out by educational institutions in Indonesia. The method used in this research is the Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP). And the results of this study show the order of aspects in choosing a video conferencing platform for teaching and learning needs.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

G. Xuedong, S. H. Qureshi, G. Ali, and A. Bhatti, “Towards an analysis of best teaching technology during corona days,” Rev. Argentina Clin. Psicol., vol. 29, no. 4, 2020, doi: 10.24205/03276716.803.

A. P. Correia, C. Liu, and F. Xu, “Evaluating videoconferencing systems for the quality of the educational experience,” Distance Educ., vol. 41, no. 4, 2020, doi: 10.1080/01587919.2020.1821607.

N. K. Y. Utami, “Design-work from home: zoom as a video conferencing platform in architecture consultant firm,” in IMADe, vol. I, p. 6, October 2020

T. J. Brinker et al., “Teledermatology: Comparison of store-and-forward versus live interactive video conferencing,” Journal of Medical Internet Research, vol. 20, no. 10. 2018, doi: 10.2196/11871.

R. Hasan and R. Hasan, “Towards a threat model and security analysis of video conferencing systems,” Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1109/CCNC49032.2021.9369505.

K. Okereafor and P. Manny, “Understanding cybersecurity challenges of telecommuting and video conferencing applications in the covid-19 pandemic,” 2020.

N. John and M. Wellmann, “Data security management and data protection for video conferencing software,” Int. Cybersecurity Law Rev., vol. 1, no. 1–2, pp. 39–50, Oct. 2020, doi: 10.1365/s43439-020-00013-4.

Y. Bandung, L. B. Subekti, D. Tanjung, and C. Chrysostomou, “QoS analysis for WebRTC videoconference on bandwidth-limited network,” in International Symposium on Wireless Personal Multimedia Communications, WPMC, 2018, vol. 2017-December, doi: 10.1109/WPMC.2017.8301873.

A. I. Saveliev, I. V. Vatamaniuk, and A. L. Ronzhin, “Architecture of data exchange with minimal client-server interaction at multipoint video conferencing,” in Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 2014, vol. 8638 LNCS, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-10353-2_15.

M. ŞAHİN and H. YURDUGÜL, “A Content Analysis Study on the Use of Analytic Hierarchy Process in Educational Studies,” Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Derg., 2018, doi: 10.21031/epod.373784.

D. Serhan, “Transitioning from Face-to-Face to Remote Learning: Students’ Attitudes and Perceptions of using Zoom during COVID-19 Pandemic,” Int. J. Technol. Educ. Sci., vol. 4, no. 4, 2020, doi: 10.46328/ijtes.v4i4.148.

R. S. Al-Maroof, S. A. Salloum, A. E. Hassanien, and K. Shaalan, “Fear from COVID-19 and technology adoption: the impact of Google Meet during Coronavirus pandemic,” Interact. Learn. Environ., 2020, doi: 10.1080/10494820.2020.1830121.

A. R. Rojabi, “Exploring EFL Students’ Perception of Online Learning via Microsoft Teams: University Level in Indonesia,” English Lang. Teach. Educ. J., vol. 3, no. 2, 2020, doi: 10.12928/eltej.v3i2.2349.

R. Singh and A. Soumya, “Updated comparative analysis on video conferencing platforms- Zoom, Google Meet, Microsoft Teams, WebEx Teams and GoToMeetings,” EasyChair world Sci., 2020.

L. Galindo-González, “The BigBlueButton in teaching- learning processes, invironmental education in ecotecnologies for sustainability,” J. Teach. Educ. Res., 2020, doi: 10.35429/jter.2020.17.6.17.29.