Choice of scheduling strategy does not significantly affect the number of resolved requests or students' overall wait time¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? No significant difference in percentage of resolved requests among the four strategies under busy or normal load. → Z. Gao 2024 q2 i? No significant difference in average or median wait time across strategies at any load. → Z. Gao 2024 (2)

Evidence¶

Z. Gao 2024¶

Z. Gao, G. S. de Oliveira, D. Babalola, C. Lynch, and S. Heckman. (2024). Who should i help next? simulation of office hours queue scheduling strategy in a cs2 course. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Educational Data Mining. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12729866

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Normal-load simulation results: "on average, 65% of the requests would get resolved" regardless of strategy, with no significant pairwise differences (p>0.05 for all pairs). The busy-load condition showed a similar null result (45% resolved, p>0.05 for all pairs).

"No significant difference in the percentage of resolved requests was found among all four strategies (p > 0.05 for all pairs); on average, 65% of the requests would get resolved no matter which scheduling strategy was applied"

Z. Gao 2024 (2)¶

Z. Gao, G. S. de Oliveira, D. Babalola, C. Lynch, and S. Heckman. (2024). Who should i help next? simulation of office hours queue scheduling strategy in a cs2 course. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Educational Data Mining. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12729866

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Wait-time analysis across all simulations (Table 1): average wait was around 80 minutes under busy load, 50 minutes under normal load, and 18 minutes under relaxed load, with no significant difference between strategies (all pair p>0.05).

"We did not find any significant difference in students' wait time when choosing different scheduling strategies (all pair p> 0.05)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The NSF advantage over FCFS appears only above an arrival-rate threshold (λ > 0.06); under relaxed queues no strategy makes a difference — related: different outcome (percentage of students helped, not resolved requests or wait time)
• Under busy or normal queue load, the New Student First (NSF) strategy significantly increases the percentage of students who receive help compared with FCFS, LWF, and VLWF — related: different outcome (percentage of students helped, not resolved requests or wait time); same simulation
• Code commit features before a help request show no correlation with interaction time, and commit-based scheduling strategies perform no better than FCFS — related