Acceptance of the Use of Social Media on the Application of Blended

Learning in Higher Education in Indonesia

Fahmi Yusuf

, Aang Subiyakto

and Titik Khawa

Information System, Universitas kuningan, West Jawa, Indonesia

Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, Indonesia

Asie e University Selangor, Malaysia

Keywords:

Social Media, Application of Blended Learning, IPO Model.

Abstract:

This study presents the development of a technology acceptance model in the context of the use of social media

in the application of blended learning which is used to measure the acceptance of the use of social media in

the application of blended learning in universities theoretically. As shown by many Information Systems

studies, most Information Systems models were developed by adopting, combining, and adapting the previous

models. The researcher developed a model based on the Input-Process-Output logic (IPO Model) and then

compared, combined, and adapted it with the technology readiness model, the technology acceptance model,

the information literacy variable, the truth perception variable, and the belief perception. The developed model

is composed of 12 variables, 57 indicators, and 31 paths between variables.

1 INTRODUCTION

Indonesian education has now entered the 4.0 era

since 2012, where in this era development and trans-

formation towards digital are being carried out to cre-

ate convenience and comfort (Adiningsih, 2019) in

learning and teaching activities, which is marked by

the development of internet use (Hamidi et al., 2021),

(Nastiti and Ni’mal‘Abdu, 2020). The internet cou-

pled with the use of information and communication

technology (ICT) has been used as a digital learning

medium that allows the learning and teaching process

to be carried out anywhere, not limited to location,

and without the need for face-to-face meetings.

The Minister of Research, Technology and Higher

Education (Ristekdikti), Muhammad Nasir in his

2018 statement (Hamidi et al., 2021) encouraged

universities to start implementing online distance

lectures by applying the blended learning method,

namely an instructional approach that combines on-

line learning and face-to-face learning (Park and So-

ciety, 2009), (Anthony, 2020). This is by the Regula-

tion of the Minister of Education and Culture (Perme-

ndikbud) number 24 of 2012 which is related to the

implementation of distance education in universities

(Pradana et al., 2015). In addition, the blended learn-

ing method also needs to be applied due to the coro-

navirus (COVID-19) pandemic that has occurred in

the past 2 years around the world, where governments

around the world make policies to study and work

from home as a form of preventing the spread of the

virus. So that the use of blended learning is deemed

appropriate to be applied in learning and teaching

activities in current conditions which can optimize

the integration of oral communication such as face-

to-face learning in class and written communication

through online learning (Usman, 2018), (Garrison and

Vaughan, 2008). Research (Sobaih et al., 2016) shows

that online learning tools have great value for achiev-

ing academic goals are social media, but in practice

their actual use by universities/faculty is at a minimal

level. So it is not known for sure what the general

acceptance of its use by universities is.

Therefore, it is necessary to develop a new accep-

tance model to be used in measuring the readiness to

use social media for the application of blended learn-

ing in universities by adopting, combining, and adapt-

ing from the previous model. Where the development

of this model is carried out to explore new opportuni-

ties from increasing readiness to use social media for

the application of blended learning in higher educa-

tion. This is according to studies (Subiyakto, 0 08),

(Nguyen et al., 2015), (Subiyakto and Ahlan, 2013),

(Sani et al., 2020) which showed that information sys-

tems performance studies need to be carried out con-

tinuously to improve the performance of abutments

Yusuf, F., Subiyakto, A. and Khawa, T.

Acceptance of the Use of Social Media on the Application of Blended Learning in Higher Education in Indonesia.

DOI: 10.5220/0012444200003848

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Advanced Information Scientiﬁc Development (ICAISD 2023), pages 76-83

ISBN: 978-989-758-678-1

and the beneﬁts promised from their implementation.

From the results of the research that will be carried

out and have been mentioned, there will be two ques-

tions given to guide and explore the implementation

of this research, namely:

1. How to understand the relationship between the

acceptance construct of using social media in the

application of blended learning?

2. How to build a technology readiness model in the

context of implementing blended learning using

social media?

This paper is arranged into ﬁve parts. First, the in-

troduction, then followed by a review of the literature,

research methods, results, and discussions, and ends

with a conclusion.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Research (Park and Society, 2009), (Anthony, 2020),

(Graham, 2006) explains the application of blended

learning which usually involves face-to-face activi-

ties and online learning delivery methods, where stu-

dents attend face-to-face classes directed by lecturers

by utilizing computer technology to create the im-

plementation of blended learning in gaining experi-

ence and also promotes student learning success and

engagement (Moskal et al., 2013), (Baragash et al.,

2018). In addition (Graham, 2013) also projects that

blended learning will be a new learning model that

uses different media resources to strengthen interac-

tions between students.

One of the conveniences offered by utilizing ICT

and the internet for learning activities is social me-

dia, which is a digital platform that provides a means

of communication that is not inﬂuenced by distance,

providing opportunities for users to easily share in-

formation, ﬁles, images, videos, send messages, and

perform activities. conversations in real-time. Wreal-

timely Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, and

others are favorite social media, social media applica-

tion services are also increasing from time to time in-

cluding WhatsApp, teWhatsApptiktok, and TikTokts

are the most widely used (Devi et al., 2019). In ad-

dition, currently, social media has also played a large

role and can inﬂuence decision-making, one of which

is in the ﬁeld of education (Devi et al., 2019), (Pu-

jiono, 2021).

Research (Ramadani and Wedi, 2019) shows that

the readiness of lecturers and students affects the im-

plementation of blended learning, and the lack of user

readiness is a signiﬁcant obstacle to the acceptance of

a new information system. Parasuraman and Colby

claim that further research on technology readiness

is needed to conclude technology availability, where

technology readiness is a description of the mental

motivators and barriers that collectively determine a

person’s propensity to use new technology (Parasura-

man, 2000).

In addition, the expertise that is considered im-

portant to support the application of blended learning

is information literacy (Khan and Technology, 2019).

Information literacy is deﬁned as the level of infor-

mation literacy as measured by its ability to search,

share, verify, and understand information, so informa-

tion literacy affects the habits of lecturers and students

in sharing information on social media on the applica-

tion of blended learning. To support the level of truth

and trust in the information received in blended learn-

ing activities, perceived validity and perceived trust

are needed, which is the level of conﬁdence and in-

dividual trust in the information received is correct

(Eddy et al., 2012), (Irhashon and Muslimin, 2018).

A study conducted (Irhashon and Muslimin, 2018)

stated that perceived validity and perceived trust can

affect the acceptance of the use of technology in this

case the use of social media in the application of

blended learning.

Dillon and Morris (1996) deﬁnes user acceptance

as the willingness of a group of users to use in-

formation technology to support their work. The

technology acceptance model (Davis, 1989) is the

most frequently used model that describes how users

accept and use a particular technology as well as

its inﬂuence on understanding information technol-

ogy which is widely known (Venkatesh and Davis,

2000), (Venkatesh and Morris, 2000), (Venkatesh

et al., 2003) and has received strong empirical support

in the literature originally developed (Davis, 1989),

(Padilla-Mel

endez et al., 2013). The technology ac-

ceptance model assumes that technology acceptance

is determined by the intention to use the system,

which is inﬂuenced by perceived usefulness, ease of

use, and attitudes toward using the system. How-

ever, perceived usefulness and ease of use are ma-

jor factors in the acceptance of effective technology.

Furthermore, the technology acceptance model was

improved and other relevant variables were added,

whereas the technology readiness model 2 (Venkatesh

and Davis, 2000) incorporates additional theoretical

constructs, including social inﬂuence processes and

cognitive instrumental processes (Padilla-Mel

endez

et al., 2013).

Research (Subiyakto and Ahlan, 2013) developed

a framework using systematic, managerial, targeted,

and environmental dimensions to understand the en-

vironment (ICT) so that it can be used as a reference

Acceptance of the Use of Social Media on the Application of Blended Learning in Higher Education in Indonesia

for understanding project success, in this case, related

to the acceptance of the use of technology.

Therefore, this study is aimed at developing a

model of acceptance of the use of social media for

the application of blended learning that refers to the

framework (Subiyakto and Ahlan, 2014), this model

was developed by adopting the IPO model (Davis and

Yen, 1998) and then comparing, adopting, adapting,

and combining.

3 RESEARCH METHODS

Procedurally, this model is built in four stages (Fig-

ure 1). First, the preliminary study (1) is carried out

by conducting initial preparations, namely reviewing

various literature studies that are closely related to the

acceptance of the use of social media in the applica-

tion of blended learning to the development of a theo-

retical framework. In the second stage, the researcher

developed a model (2) by adopting the concepts, the-

ories, and models from the study, then combining and

adapting them in the context of accepting the use of

social media for the application of blended learning.

Figure 1: Research Procedure.

In the third stage, from the results of the model de-

velopment, instrument development (3) was carried

out by identifying related indicators and making re-

search instruments. Finally, the fourth stage is writing

a research report (4) of the research ﬁndings.

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The development of this model was proposed based

on the ﬁndings and suggestions of previous studies

(Table 1) where previous researchers (Subiyakto and

Ahlan, 2014), (Anfara and Mertz, 2014), (Sani and

Wiliani, 2019), (Beloit and Gauvreau, 2004) tended to

develop practical IS research models using previous

models rather than based on empirical studies. This

model was developed by adopting the concepts, theo-

ries, and models from the research (Parasuraman and

Colby, 2015) to be further combined and adapted in

the context of accepting the use of social media for

the application of blended learning at private univer-

sities in West Java, Indonesia.

Table 1: List of Concepts, Theories, and Models of the

Framework used.

Model Concept/Theory Reference

Theory of information processes (Subiyakto and Ahlan, 2014),

(Davis and Yen, 1998)

Technology readiness model (Subiyakto, 0 08),

(Parasuraman and Colby, 2015)

Technological acceptance model (Davis, 1989),

(Venkatesh and Davis, 2000)

Theory of perception of truth and belief (Eddy et al., 2012),

(Irhashon and Muslimin, 2018)

The concept of the project environment (Howsawi et al., 2011),

(Lim and Mohamed, 1999)

(McLeod and MacDonell, 2011),

(McLeod and MacDonell, 2012),

Theory of informational (Khan and Technology, 2019)

Process and causal models on develop-

ment models

(Eddy et al., 2012),

(Subiyakto and Ahlan, 2014),

(Sani and Wiliani, 2019),

(Kellogg, 2004),

(Petter and McLean, 2008),

(Judge and M

uller, 2005),

Based on information processing theory

(Subiyakto and Ahlan, 2014), (Davis and Yen,

1998) the model was developed using the IPO logic

computer logic model as the basis for the modeling

design, which is still used by many researchers in

their research in the ﬁeld of Information and Com-

munication Technology (ICT) to measure the quality

of a system. Where the IPO model is used to describe

the systematic concept of a system that is expected to

make it easier for stakeholders who do not understand

technical work to understand. The IPO model can

describe the phenomenon of modeling integration

readiness through three dimensions, namely the

dimensions of input (input), process (process), and

output (output).

Figure 2: IPO Logic (Davis and Yen, 1998).

In general, the design model was developed by

adopting, combining, and adapting the technology

readiness model (Parasuraman and Colby, 2015),

the technology acceptance model (Davis, 1989),

(Venkatesh and Davis, 2000), the information liter-

acy variable (Khan and Technology, 2019), the truth

perception variable, and the trust perception variable

(Eddy et al., 2012), (Irhashon and Muslimin, 2018).

The stages, namely:

ICAISD 2023 - International Conference on Advanced Information Scientiﬁc Development

1. The researcher compared the IPO model (Davis

and Yen, 1998) with the technology acceptance

model (Davis, 1989), (Venkatesh and Davis,

2000), and it was found that the process model

and clauses in the technology acceptance model

have not been able to meet the completeness of

the IPO model. Where the technology acceptance

model only fulﬁlls the process and output dimen-

sions, so it is necessary to combine theories and

models to meet the input dimensions;

2. To fulﬁll the input dimension, the researcher

adopted the technology readiness model (Parasur-

aman and Colby, 2015) and added an information

literacy variable to measure the ability to search,

understand, and disseminate information. How-

ever, this ability can affect a person’s perception

of truth and belief in information so researchers

need to add variables of perception of truth and

belief that are included in the process dimension;

3. The adoption process, namely:

a. Adopt 4 (four) dimensions of the technology

readiness structure and TRI 1.0 (Parasuraman

and Colby, 2015) as a variable, namely opti-

mism, innovation (innovativeness), discomfort

(discomfort), and insecurity (insecurity).

Figure 3: TAM Model (Davis, 1989).

Figure 4: Model TAM 2 (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000).

b. Comparing the technology acceptance model

(Davis, 1989), (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000)

then adopting 5 (ﬁve) variables, namely per-

ceived usefulness, perceived ease of use (per-

ceived easy to use), intention to use (intention

to use), usage behavior ( usage behavior), and

actual use.

c. Adopting information literacy variables (Khan

and Technology, 2019) and perceived valid-

ity and perceived trust variables (Eddy et al.,

2012), (Irhashon and Muslimin, 2018).

4. The integration process of modeling can also be

inﬂuenced by environmental entities (Howsawi

et al., 2011), (Lim and Mohamed, 1999) where

the name is adapted to the research discussion, in

this case, the acceptance of the use of social media

for the application of blended learning;

5. Models are developed and combined according to

the previously mentioned theory. (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Proposed Model of Acceptance of the Use of So-

cial Media on the Implementation of Blended Learning.

Table 2: Deﬁnition of Model Variables (Khan and Tech-

nology, 2019), (Eddy et al., 2012), (Irhashon and Mus-

limin, 2018), (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000), (Parasuraman

and Colby, 2015), (Subiyakto et al., 2017).

Variable Deﬁnition

Information literacy

(INL)

A person’s ability to search for, understand, share, and

verify.

Optimism (OPT) A positive view of the use of blended learning so-

cial media and the belief that its use offers people

increased control, ﬂexibility, and efﬁciency in their

lives.

Innovativeness (INV) The tendency to be technology pioneers and thought

leaders where users can see that blended learning so-

cial media is an advanced level a system.

Discomfort (DCF) The extent to which an organization has percep-

tions related to the lack of control over social media

blended learning and feelings of discomfort in its use.

Insecurity (ISC) Distrust in the use of blended learning social me-

dia stems from skepticism about its ability to work

well and concern about its potentially harmful conse-

quences.

Perceived validity

(PCV)

Related to whether the output of a process represents

an explanation of its source. In the context of the qual-

ity of the information in blended learning social me-

dia, whether the information comes from an account-

able source.

Perceived trust (PCT) Related to the level of conﬁdence in something or

someone who demonstrates aspects of honesty and re-

liability.

Perceived usefulness

(PCU)

Explains the extent to which blended social media

learning can be useful.

Perceived ease to use

(PEU)

Explains the extent to which social media blended

learning is easy to use.

Intention to use (ITU) Explains the level of desire of blended learning social

media users in using it and suggests to other users to

use it

After developing the model, the researcher identiﬁed

the indicators associated with these variables (Table

3).

Acceptance of the Use of Social Media on the Application of Blended Learning in Higher Education in Indonesia

Variable Deﬁnition

Usage behavior (UBV) The extent of a person’s assessment and comfort with

the use of blended learning social media

Actual use (ACU) The extent of a person’s actual use of social media

blended learning

Table 3: List of Indicators (Khan and Technology, 2019),

(Eddy et al., 2012), (Irhashon and Muslimin, 2018), (Davis,

1989), (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000), (Parasuraman and

Colby, 2015), (Subiyakto et al., 2017), (Durodolu and Prac-

tice, 2016), (Koltay and society, 2011), (Aisy, 2021), (Rach-

man, 2019), (Mokhtar and Foo, 2004), (Goode and Jo-

hansen, 2012).

# Indikator Deﬁnisi

INL1 Information

seeking

The ability of individuals to search for information

on social media for the implementation of blended

learning.

INL2 Information veri-

ﬁcation

The ability of individuals to verify information on

social media for the implementation of blended

learning.

INL3 Information

Sharing

The ability of individuals to disseminate informa-

tion on social media for the implementation of

blended learning.

INL4 Digital literacy The ability of individuals to use digital media

in ﬁnding information for the implementation of

blended learning.

INL5 Media literacy The ability of individuals to receive, understand

and analyze information on social media for the im-

plementation of blended learning.

OPT1 Easiness The extent to which the ability to use social media

can provide freedom from constraints, difﬁculties,

and problems for the implementation of blended

learning.

OPT2 Connectivity The extent to which the ability to use social media

is successfully connected with other systems for the

implementation of blended learning.

OPT3 Efﬁciency The extent to which the achievement of the use of

social media can produce output according to the

resources needed to achieve this output for the im-

plementation of blended learning.

OPT4 Effectiveness The extent to which the ability to use social media

can achieve the purpose of its use for the implemen-

tation of blended learning.

OPT5 Productivity The extent to which the use of social media sup-

ports can produce outputs by the resources needed

to produce these outputs for the implementation of

blended learning.

INV1 Problem-solving The extent to which support the use of social media

can ﬁnd solutions to problems in the implementa-

tion of blended learning.

INV2 Independence The extent to which the ability to use social media

can support its users to be free from control or in-

ﬂuence in the implementation of blended learning.

INV3 Challenge The extent to which social media use support is suc-

cessful in addressing or achieving something in a

difﬁcult situation or problem for the implementa-

tion of blended learning.

INV4 Stimulation The extent to which support for the use of so-

cial media can encourage something to happen, de-

velop, or increase the implementation of blended

learning.

INV5 Competitiveness The extent to which the ability to use social me-

dia can support users to be more successful than

their competitors in the implementation of blended

learning.

DCF1 Complexity The extent to which social media features are con-

fusing or difﬁcult to understand in the implementa-

tion of blended learning.

DCF2 Difﬁculty The extent to which social media conditions cannot

be operated easily in the implementation of blended

learning.

DCF3 Dependence The extent to which social media conditions require

other parties to operate it in the implementation of

blended learning.

DCF4 Lack of support The extent to which social media does not have or

is not have enough support for its operations in the

implementation of blended learning.

The indicators that have been identiﬁed are then

translated into the form of research instruments, by

making statements that are used as measurement

# Indikator Deﬁnisi

DCF5 Inappropriateness The extent to which the state of social media

is inappropriate to use in the implementation of

blended learning.

ISC1 Failure The extent of the possibility of unpleasant or

harmful use of social media in the implementation

of blended learning.

ISC2 Threat The extent to which the situation of using social

media can cause harm in the implementation of

blended learning.

ISC3 Reducing Inter-

action

The extent to which the application of social me-

dia in the implementation of blended learning can

make human interactions less in size, number, and

importance.

ISC4 Distraction The extent to which the use of social media in the

implementation of blended learning gets attention

and prevents people from concentrating on some-

thing else.

ISC5 Incredulity The extent to which the use of social media in the

implementation of blended learning is doubtful.

PCV1 Accuracy The extent to which social media displays in-

formation accurately for the implementation of

blended learning.

PCV2 Consistency The extent to which social media displays in-

formation consistently for the implementation of

blended learning.

PCV3 Easy to describe The extent to which social media explains infor-

mation in detail easily in the implementation of

blended learning.

PCV4 Psychometric The extent to which social media can display in-

formation from theoretical aspects in the imple-

mentation of blended learning.

PCV5 Retrievable The extent to which information in social media

in the implementation of blended learning can be

traced to the source of reference.

PCT1 Clarity The extent to which information in social media

in the implementation of blended learning can dis-

play the source of reference.

PCT2 Integrity The extent to which information in social me-

dia in the implementation of blended learning can

display aspects of the integrity of the reference

source.

PCT3 Systematization The extent to which information in social media

on the implementation of blended learning can be

displayed systematically.

PCT4 Openness The extent to which information in social me-

dia in the implementation of blended learning can

display the transparency aspect of the reference

source.

PCT5 Coherence The extent to which information in social media

on the implementation of blended learning can be

displayed logically and thoroughly.

PCT6 Data Sufﬁcient The extent to which information in social media

on the implementation of blended learning can be

displayed with sufﬁcient data.

PCU1 Work more

quickly

The extent to which the use of social media can

carry out blended learning faster.

PCU2 Improve job per-

formance

The extent to which the use of social media can

improve the performance of blended learning im-

plementation.

PCU3 Increase produc-

tivity

The extent to which the use of social media can

increase the productivity of blended learning im-

plementation.

PCU4 Effectiveness The extent to which the use of social media can

save time in implementing blended learning.

PCU5 Make job easier The extent to which the use of social media can

facilitate the implementation of blended learning.

PCU6 Useful The extent to which the use of social media can be

useful for the implementation of blended learning.

PEU1 Easy to learn The extent to which the use of social media for

the implementation of blended learning is easy to

learn.

PEU2 Controllable The extent to which the use of social media for the

implementation of blended learning can be regu-

lated safely or limited.

PEU3 Clear and under-

standable

The extent to which the use of social media for

the implementation of blended learning has clarity

and is understandable.

tools. So that it will provide a more detailed un-

derstanding in revealing the characteristics, namely

how to measure the success rate of ICT management

among Islamic boarding school-based PTKIS (Table

4).

ICAISD 2023 - International Conference on Advanced Information Scientiﬁc Development

# Indikator Deﬁnisi

PEU4 Flexible The extent to which the use of social media for

the implementation of blended learning is easily

modiﬁed to respond to changing circumstances.

PEU5 Easy to become

skillful

The extent to which the use of social media

can add skills to users in the implementation of

blended learning.

PEU6 Easy to use The extent to which social media in the implemen-

tation of blended learning is easy to use.

ITU1 Intend to use it in

the future

The extent of the desire to use social media to

carry out blended learning in the future.

ITU2 Use regularly The extent of the desire to use social media to

carry out intensive blended learning.

ITU3 Recommend oth-

ers to use

The extent of the user’s desire to recommend the

use of social media for the implementation of

blended learning to other users.

UBV1 Bad/good idea The extent to which users can judge their

good/bad in using social media for implementing

blended learning.

UBV2 Foolish/wise idea The extent to which users can judge whether or

not they are wise in using social media for imple-

menting blended learning.

UBV3 Dislike/like The extent to which users can judge their dis-

likes/likes in using social media for implementing

blended learning.

UBV4 Unpleasant/pleasant The extent to which users can judge his/her un-

pleasantness in the use of social media for the im-

plementation of blended learning.

ACU1 Frequency of us-

age

The extent of the frequency of use of social media

for the implementation of blended learning.

ACU2 Duration of use The extent of the duration of the use of social me-

dia for the implementation of blended learning.

5 CONCLUSION

This research conducts new development and under-

standing related to the acceptance of the use of social

media to the application of blended learning, where

the model is developed by adopting the IPO model

and then comparing, and combining the technology

readiness model, technology acceptance model, in-

formation ﬂexibility variables, truth perception vari-

ables, and trust perception, then adapted into a model

acceptance of the use of social media to the applica-

tion of blended learning. The model consists of 12

variables, 57 indicators, and 31 paths between its vari-

ables.

In addition, the development of this model can

theoretically contribute to measuring social media ac-

ceptance towards the application of blended learning

in higher education and as a reference for the de-

velopment of further acceptance models. However,

the assumptions used in model development, research

methods, and the authors’ understanding may be lim-

itations of the study. But these limitations can be dis-

cussed for further research.

REFERENCES

Adiningsih, S. (2019). Transformasi ekonomi berbasis dig-

ital di Indonesia: lahirnya tren baru teknologi, bisnis,

ekonomi, dan kebijakan di Indonesia. Gramedia Pus-

taka Utama.

Aisy, R. (2021). Analisis penerimaan media sosial di

Table 4: List of Statements on the Research Questionnaire.

Statement on the questionnaire

INL1 I am looking for information on social media for blended learning.

INL2 I veriﬁed the information I got on social media for blended learn-

ing.

INL3 I spread information on social media for blended learning.

INL4 I was able to ﬁnd the information I needed on social media for

blended learning.

INL5 I can understand the information obtained on social media for

blended learning.

OPT1 Blended learning with social media is free from obstacles, difﬁcul-

ties, and problems.

OPT2 Blended learning with social media can be easily connected to

other systems/applications.

OPT3 Blended learning with social media is more efﬁcient.

OPT4 Blended learning with social media is more effective.

OPT5 Blended learning with social media is more productive.

INV1 Blended learning with social media is a solution for me.

INV2 Blended learning with social media helped me be free from control

and inﬂuence.

INV3 Blended learning with social media supports me to learn even in

difﬁcult situations/ conditions.

INV4 Blended learning with social media stimulates/encourages me to

keep learning.

INV5 Blended learning with social media supports me to be more suc-

cessful than other people who don’t use social media.

DCF1 Blended learning with social media is confusing and elusive.

DCF2 Blended learning with social media is not easy to use.

DCF3 Blended learning with social media is not free to use.

DCF4 Blended learning with social media does not receive full support in

the implementation.

DCF5 Blended learning with social media is not the learning method.

ISC1 Blended learning with social media is not successfully carried out

according to the learning method.

ISC2 Blended learning with social media can cause harm.

ISC3 Blended learning with social media makes me less associated with

others.

ISC4 Blended learning with social media keeps me from focusing on

other things that are also important.

ISC5 Blended learning with social media is dubious to do.

PCV1 Blended learning with social media is displayed accurately.

PCV2 Blended learning with social media is displayed consistently.

PCV3 Blended learning with social media is easy to explain.

PCV4 Blended learning with social media displays its theoretical aspects.

PCV5 Blended learning with social media can be traced to the reference

source.

PCT1 Blended learning with social media is displayed.

PCT2 Blended learning with social media displays the wholeness aspect

of the reference source.

PCT3 Blended learning with social media is displayed systematically.

PCT4 Blended learning with social media displays the transparency as-

pect of the source of the reference.

PCT5 Blended learning with social media is displayed logically and thor-

oughly.

PCT6 Blended learning with social media is displayed with sufﬁcient

data.

PCU1 Blended learning with social media can get my work done faster.

PCU2 Blended learning with social media can improve my performance.

PCU3 Blended learning with social media can increase my productivity.

PCU4 Blended learning with social media can improve my effectiveness.

PCU5 Blended learning with social media can make my job easier.

PCU6 Blended learning with social media is useful for my work.

PEU1 I easily do blended learning with social media.

PEU2 I easily get what I need in blended learning by using social media.

PEU3 I can clearly understand blended learning with social media.

PEU4 I feel blended learning with social media can be used ﬂexibly.

PEU5 I feel like I’m becoming skilled when learning blended learning

with social media.

PEU6 I ﬁnd blended learning with social media easy to use.

ITU1 I will do blended learning with social media in the future.

ITU2 I do blended learning with social media intensively.

ITU3 I recommend other friends to do blended learning with social me-

dia.

UBV1 I do blended learning with social media well.

UBV2 I do blended learning with social media wisely.

UBV3 I love doing blended learning with social media.

UBV4 I love doing blended learning with social media.

ACU1 I do blended learning with social media every day.

ACU2 I do blended learning with social media for an average of at least 1

hour each time of learning.

sumatera barat sebagai alat penyebaran informasi

menggunakan technology acceptance model. Fakultas

Sains dan Teknologi UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.

Acceptance of the Use of Social Media on the Application of Blended Learning in Higher Education in Indonesia

Anfara, Jr, V. and Mertz, N. (2014). Theoretical frameworks

in qualitative research. Sage publications.

Anthony, B. (2020). Blended learning adoption and im-

plementation in higher education: A theoretical and

systematic review.

Baragash, R., Al-Samarraie, H., and Informatics (2018).

Blended learning: Investigating the inﬂuence of en-

gagement in multiple learning delivery modes on stu-

dents’ performance.

Beloit, A. and Gauvreau, C. (2004). Factors inﬂuencing

project success: the impact of human resource man-

agement. International journal of project manage-

ment, 22(1):1–11,.

Davis, D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of

use, and user acceptance of information technology.

MIS quarterly, pages 319–340,.

Davis, W. and Yen, D. (1998). The Information System Con-

sultant’s Handbook: Systems Analysis and Design.

CRC Press.

Devi, E., Lakshmi, and Research, I. (2019). Role of social

media in teaching-learning process.

Durodolu and Practice (2016). Technology acceptance

model as a predictor of using information system to

acquire information literacy skills.

Eddy, W., Caro, J., McDonald, and Wong, J. (2012). Model

transparency and validation a report of the ispor-smdm

modeling good research practices task force–7. Med-

ical Decision Making, 32(5):733–743,.

Garrison, D. and Vaughan, N. (2008). Blended learning in

higher education: Framework, principles, and guide-

lines. John Wiley & Sons.

Goode and Johansen, T. (2012). Understanding adoption of

new technologies: Technology readiness and technol-

ogy acceptance as an integrated concept. Journal of

European Psychology Students, 3(1).

Graham (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended

learning. In Handbook of distance education, page

351–368. Routledge.

Graham, l. d. (2006). Blended learning systems.

Hamidi, D., Riswandi, R., and Permadi, M. (2021). Blended

learning dalam perspektif bisnis: Pengaruh pener-

imaan teknologi informasi terhadap minat memilih

perguruan tinggi.

Howsawi, E., Eager, D., and Bagia, R. (2011). Under-

standing project success: The four-level project suc-

cess framework. In IEEE International Conference on

Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management

(IEEM, page 620–624. IEEE.

Irhashon and Muslimin, J. (2018). Persepsi kebenaran

dan kepercayaan terhadap penerimaan pustaka elek-

tronik keislaman oleh para akademisi perguruan tinggi

keagamaan islam indonesia.

Judge and M

uller, R. (2005). A retrospective look at our

evolving understanding of project success. Project

Management Journal, 36(4):19–31,.

Kellogg (2004). Logic model development guide. WK Kel-

logg Foundation, Michigan.

Khan, I. and Technology, I. (2019). Recognise misinforma-

tion and verify before sharing: a reasoned action and

information literacy perspective.

Koltay, c. and society (2011). The media and the literacies:

Media literacy, information literacy, digital literacy.

Lim and Mohamed, M. (1999). Criteria of project success:

an exploratory re-examination. International journal

of project management, 17(4):243–248,.

McLeod and MacDonell, S. (2011). Factors that affect soft-

ware systems development project outcomes: A sur-

vey of research. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR,

43(4):24,.

McLeod, B. and MacDonell, S. (2012). A perspective-based

understanding of project success. Project Manage-

ment Journal, 43(5):68–86,.

Mokhtar, S. and Foo, S. (2004). Measuring information

literacy in education. In Conference on Informa-

tion Literacy-Information, page 4–7, Learning, Inno-

vation. Delivering Global Knowledge.

Moskal, P., Dziuban, C., Hartman, and Education, H.

(2013). Blended learning: A dangerous idea?

Nastiti and Ni’mal‘Abdu (2020). Kesiapan pendidikan in-

donesia menghadapi era society 5.0.

Nguyen, T., Nguyen, T., and Cao (2015). Information sys-

tems success: A literature review. In International

Conference on Future Data and Security Engineering,

page 242–256. Springer.

Padilla-Mel

endez, A. A.-O., Garrido-Moreno, and Educa-

tion (2013). Perceived playfulness, gender differences

and technology acceptance model in a blended learn-

ing scenario.

Parasuraman (2000). Technology readiness index (tri) a

multiple-item scale to measure readiness to embrace

new technologies.

Parasuraman, A. and Colby, C. (2015). An upyeard and

streamlined technology readiness index: Tri 2.0. Jour-

nal of service research, 18(1):59–74,.

Park and Society (2009). How are universities involved in

blended instruction?

Petter, W. and McLean, E. (2008). Measuring information

systems success: models, dimensions, measures, and

interrelationships. European journal of information

systems, 17(3):236–263,.

Pradana, F., Rachmadi, A., and Bachtiar (2015). Penilaian

faktor penerimaan teknologi blended learning di ptiik

universitas brawijaya dengan metode uniﬁed theory of

acceptance and use of technology (utaut).

Pujiono (2021). Media sosial sebagai media pembelajaran

bagi generasi z.

Rachman, A. (2019). Pengaruh variabel information lit-

eracy, perceived validity, dan perceived trust ter-

hadap penerimaan media sosial di antara pengguna

di JABODETABEK sebagai alat penyebaran infor-

masi. Fakultas Sains dan Teknologi Universitas Islam

Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah.

Ramadani, S. and Wedi (2019). Faktor-faktor yang berpen-

garuh terhadap implementasi blended learning di ju-

rusan teknologi pendidikan universitas negeri malang.

Sani, A. and Wiliani, N. (2019). Faktor kesiapan dan

adopsi teknologi informasi dalam konteks teknologi

serta lingkungan pada umkm di jakarta.

ICAISD 2023 - International Conference on Advanced Information Scientiﬁc Development

Sani, A., Wiliani, N., Budiyantara, A., and Nawaningtyas,

N. (2020). Pengembangan model adopsi teknologi

informasi terhadap model penerimaan teknologi di-

antara umkm. JITK (Jurnal Ilmu Pengetahuan dan

Teknologi Komputer, 5(2):151–158.

Sobaih, A., Moustafa, M., Ghandforoush, P., and Khan

(2016). To use or not to use? social media in higher

education in developing countries. Computers in Hu-

man Behavior, 58:296–305,.

Subiyakto, A. (2017-10-08). Development of the readiness

and success model for assessing the information sys-

tem integration. In International Conference on Sci-

ence and Technology (ICOSAT) 2017, Jakarta.

Subiyakto, A. and Ahlan, A. (2013). A coherent frame-

work for understanding critical success factors of the

ict project environment. In 2013 International Confer-

ence on Research and Innovation in Information Sys-

tems (CRISIS, page 342–347.

Subiyakto, A. and Ahlan, A. (2014). Implementa-

tion of input-process-output model for measuring

information system project success. TELKOM-

NIKA Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering,

12(7):5603–5612,.

Subiyakto, A., Rosalina, R., Utami, M., Kumaladewi, N.,

and Putra, S. (2017). The psychometric and interpre-

tative analyses for assessing the end-user computing

satisfaction questionnaire. In 5th International Con-

ference on Information Technology for Cyber and IT

Service Management (CITSM, Denpasar, Bali, 2017.

IEEE.

Usman, U. (2018). Komunikasi pendidikan berbasis

blended learning dalam membentuk kemandirian be-

lajar.

Venkatesh and Davis, F. (2000). A theoretical extension of

the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal

ﬁeld studies. Management Science, 46(2):186–204,.

Venkatesh and Morris (2000). Why don’t men ever stop to

ask for directions? gender, social inﬂuence, and their

role in technology acceptance and usage behavior.

Venkatesh, M., Davis, G., and Davis, D. (2003). User ac-

ceptance of information technology: Toward a uniﬁed

view. MIS quarterly, pages 425–478.

Acceptance of the Use of Social Media on the Application of Blended Learning in Higher Education in Indonesia