The Effects of Debate on Students’ Preferences for Restorative Materials
Contributors:
A. Crutchfield, DMD, MPH1
P. Crutchfield, PhD1
A. Musawi, BDS, MS1
A. Crutchfield, DMD, MPH1
P. Crutchfield, PhD1
A. Musawi, BDS, MS1
Participating Organizations:
Missouri School of Dentistry and Oral Health, A.T. Still University
Missouri School of Dentistry and Oral Health, A.T. Still University
Purpose
The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effects of a student debate upon those students’ preferences for restorative materials. Though most dentists base their decisions on whether to use composite or amalgam in restorative procedures by balancing the relative costs and benefits of each material with patient preferences, some dentists maintain strong preferences for a particular material. Whether such a preference is justified remains a controversial matter that can only be determined by considering the best evidence. Thus, the debate occurred as a component of the students’ curriculum in Evidence-based Dentistry, a curriculum that focuses on using critical thinking to appraise the scientific evidence and integrate that appraisal into dental practice. Debate was the pedagogical method of choice because it was an activity that could involve the whole class simultaneously, engage each student with a specific critical thinking task, and introduce a wide range of scientific data to all of the students in a timely and efficient manner.
The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effects of a student debate upon those students’ preferences for restorative materials. Though most dentists base their decisions on whether to use composite or amalgam in restorative procedures by balancing the relative costs and benefits of each material with patient preferences, some dentists maintain strong preferences for a particular material. Whether such a preference is justified remains a controversial matter that can only be determined by considering the best evidence. Thus, the debate occurred as a component of the students’ curriculum in Evidence-based Dentistry, a curriculum that focuses on using critical thinking to appraise the scientific evidence and integrate that appraisal into dental practice. Debate was the pedagogical method of choice because it was an activity that could involve the whole class simultaneously, engage each student with a specific critical thinking task, and introduce a wide range of scientific data to all of the students in a timely and efficient manner.
Methods
The debate occurred among 42 second-year dental students during the Evidence-based Dentistry curriculum. The debate prompt was: “The use of amalgam should be phased out of dentistry.” Students were divided into three groups of 14 students each based on their personal preferences. One group was tasked with affirming the prompt, one group was tasked with denying the prompt, and one group played the role of judges. The judges were responsible for determining the rules of the debate, the criteria for victory, and the victor. Prior to the debate all students completed a survey on their preferred material, their reasons for that preference, and the number of restorations they had completed using composite and amalgam. The debate occurred over a two-hour period, immediately after which students completed the same survey, prior to the judges rendering a verdict. To determine how individual students’ preferences changed, data were cross-tabulated and a repeated measures ANOVA used to identify variables that may predict those preferences.
The debate occurred among 42 second-year dental students during the Evidence-based Dentistry curriculum. The debate prompt was: “The use of amalgam should be phased out of dentistry.” Students were divided into three groups of 14 students each based on their personal preferences. One group was tasked with affirming the prompt, one group was tasked with denying the prompt, and one group played the role of judges. The judges were responsible for determining the rules of the debate, the criteria for victory, and the victor. Prior to the debate all students completed a survey on their preferred material, their reasons for that preference, and the number of restorations they had completed using composite and amalgam. The debate occurred over a two-hour period, immediately after which students completed the same survey, prior to the judges rendering a verdict. To determine how individual students’ preferences changed, data were cross-tabulated and a repeated measures ANOVA used to identify variables that may predict those preferences.
Conclusion
Prior to the debate only two variables were significantly predictive of material preference: the material’s mechanical properties and its esthetics. After the debate only esthetics significantly predicted preferences. More surprising were the students’ changes in material preference. Prior to the debate 9% of judges preferred amalgam rather than composite. None of those judges changed their preference after the debate, in spite of the fact that they overwhelmingly declared the team advocating for the continued use of amalgam as the winner. For the students that advocated for the elimination of amalgam, 36% preferred amalgam prior to the debate and 0% after. For the team advocating for the continued use of amalgam, 21% preferred amalgam prior to the debate and 36% after. The results show that rather than encourage critical thinking, class-wide debates may polarize students and dispose them to base their preferences upon their group instead of the best scientific evidence. Educators should therefore consider this potential effect when using debate in the dental school curriculum.
Prior to the debate only two variables were significantly predictive of material preference: the material’s mechanical properties and its esthetics. After the debate only esthetics significantly predicted preferences. More surprising were the students’ changes in material preference. Prior to the debate 9% of judges preferred amalgam rather than composite. None of those judges changed their preference after the debate, in spite of the fact that they overwhelmingly declared the team advocating for the continued use of amalgam as the winner. For the students that advocated for the elimination of amalgam, 36% preferred amalgam prior to the debate and 0% after. For the team advocating for the continued use of amalgam, 21% preferred amalgam prior to the debate and 36% after. The results show that rather than encourage critical thinking, class-wide debates may polarize students and dispose them to base their preferences upon their group instead of the best scientific evidence. Educators should therefore consider this potential effect when using debate in the dental school curriculum.
