ABSTRACT
Mandatory attendance, particularly in didactic settings, is a highly debated topic in higher education, including dental education. Within dental education, a large portion of education occurs in preclinical laboratories and clinical environments. There is little to no research on attendance in these settings in dental schools. This point/counterpoint paper examines the pros and cons of mandatory attendance in these highly specialized educational settings. With the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic that began in March 2020 and continues to impact dental education at the time of publication, this topic has become even more relevant. Viewpoint 1 claims that attendance should be mandatory because a greater exposure to preclinical and clinical environments helps foster better clinical hand skills, critical thinking, decision-making, problem-solving skills, and an overall sense of professional identity. It goes on further to suggest that there may be a link between attendance and performance in exams and that attendance is part of the dental school's responsibility. Viewpoint 2 argues that the rationale for attendance is complex, and that creating learning environments that are psychologically safe will incentivize students to attend, even without mandatory attendance policies. Furthermore, it explains that technological advances have allowed dental schools to think creatively about asynchronous learning, which by its very nature does not require attendance at a given time. The authors of both viewpoints conclude that the preclinical and clinical education and experience are critical dental education and that dental school leaders should focus on improving the quality of these experiences.