A book recommender system for enhancing reading engagement: a systematic review
Sivakorn Malakul, Pokpong Songmuang
Chulalongkorn University Thammasat University
阅读操作
确认中在文库中上传 PDF 后可生成中文音频讲解。
摘要与影响
This systematic review of book recommender systems (BRS) examines relationships between recommendation techniques, algorithms, and features, and their effects on reading engagement dimensions. Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, 32 studies from 2020 to 2024 were analyzed using network analysis and centrality measures in four major databases. Six primary BRS development goals emerged, with technical improvement dominating (71.43%) over reading promotion (28.57%). Network analysis revealed a multipartite graph with 20 nodes and 105 edges, where Collaborative Filtering demonstrated highest centrality (weighted degree = 151) and the strongest connection with Machine Learning algorithms (weight = 24, 75% of studies). Three architectural clusters emerged: user-centric approaches centered on Collaborative Filtering, content-centric strategies integrating Hybrid Filtering with Neighborhood Methods, and specialized techniques with limited connectivity. Book-related Features (84.38%) and User-related Features (81.25%) showed highest implementation frequency. Reading engagement analysis demonstrated a significant imbalance: Behavioral Engagement appeared in 68.75% of studies, Affective Engagement in 56.25%, Cognitive Engagement in 43.75%, but Social Engagement in only 15.63%. Behavioral and Affective Engagement showed highest co-occurrence (37.50%), followed by Behavioral-Cognitive and Cognitive-Affective pairs (28.13% each). Challenges include limited integration of Social Interaction Features, algorithmic bias concerns, and insufficient consideration of cultural diversity. This study provides a systematic mapping of the relationships between the BRS components and the foundation for understanding how BRS supports reading engagement across contexts.
逐年被引趋势
关键指标
同类平均 = 1
同领域 · 同年份 · 同类型
Google Scholar 与 OpenAlex 的被引统计范围不同,数值存在差异属正常。
AI 辅助阅读
依据:摘要
可就本文提问;依据不足时会说明。
学术脉络
学科主题
社会科学Reading and Literacy Development
Online Learning and Analytics · Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
参考文献 64
此处列出前 3 条
引用本文 1
按被引量排序,此处列出前 3 条