Overall experience with modalities and tools based on target groupsModalities

Both learners and educators are more experienced with synchronous learning (M = 3.65; M = 3.79) and blended learning (M = 3.37; M = 3.45), and less experienced with asynchronous learning (M = 3.27; M = 3.00) and hybrid learning (M = 3.29; M = 3.35). The learners’ and educators’ experiences with learning modalities in detail are provided in the attachment.

Tools

Both learners and educators are most experienced with live lecture platforms (M = 3.74; M = 4.02). Besides, learners also have much experience with e-books (M = 3.60), video tutorials (M = 3.51), and podcasts/audio lectures/audiobooks (M = 3.51). Learners and educators are less experienced with e.g. e-portfolios (M = 2.24; M = 2.08), MOOCs (M = 2.24; M = 2.05), e-assessment tools (M = 2.04; M = 2.06), VR/AR/XR (M = 1.93; M = 1.98), and digital simulations (M = 2.03; M = 1.89). The learners’ and educators’ experiences with digital learning tools in detail are provided in the attachment.

Experience with Modalities and Tools Based on RegionsModalities Learners

Compared to the overall sample, a similar pattern can be found across regions (Fig. 1). As to synchronous learning, only learners from Northern Europe are less experienced (M = 3.33). As to blended learning, learners from Northern Europe (M = 3.00) and Southern Europe (M = 2.90) have less experience than the overall target group. Learners from Central Europe are more experienced with asynchronous learning (M = 3.57) compared to the overall sample. Learners from South Eastern Europe have more experience with hybrid learning (M = 3.47) than the overall target group.

Figure 1

Experience with modalities and tools based on regions

Educators

Compared to the overall sample, a similar pattern can be found across regions (Fig. 1). As to synchronous learning, educators from South Eastern Europe (M = 3.20) and Western Europe (M = 3.38) have less experience than the overall target group. As to blended learning, only educators from Western Europe are less experienced (M = 3.08). In Western Europe, a low value can also be found with respect to asynchronous learning (M = 2.54). Once more, educators from Central Europe have more experience with asynchronous learning (M = 3.43) than the overall target group. Educators from Central Europe (M = 3.64), Northern Europe (M = 3.57), and South Eastern Europe (M = 3.60) are more experienced with hybrid learning compared to the overall sample.

Tools Learners

Compared to the overall sample, a similar pattern can be found across regions (Fig. 1). Except for learners from Northern Europe (M = 3.33), learners are most experienced with live lecture platforms. In Northern Europe, learners are most experienced with podcasts/audio lectures/audiobooks (M = 3.67) and e-books (M = 3.67). Across regions, learners have much experience with podcasts/audio lectures/audiobooks and e-books, except in Southern Europe (M = 3.05; M = 3.24), and much experience with video tutorials, except in Northern Europe (M = 3.33) and Southern Europe (M = 3.19). Besides, learners from Central Europe (M = 3.43) and South Eastern Europe (M = 3.41) have much experience with interactive presentations. Learners from South Eastern Europe are also well experienced with online discussion boards/forums/wikis (M = 3.50). Striking values can be found in the following regions: Learners from Central Europe have no experience with e-portfolios (M = 1.78) and e-assessment tools (M = 1.70). Learners from Northern Europe have no experience with mobile learning applications (M = 1.67), MOOCs (M = 1.67), digital simulations (M = 1.67), LMS (M = 1.33), VR/AR/XR (M = 1.33), and digital educational games (M = 1.33). Learners from Southern Europe have no experience with VR/AR/XR (M = 1.76) and e-portfolios (M = 1.71).

Educators

Compared to the overall sample, a similar pattern can be found across regions (Fig. 1). Across regions, educators are most experienced with live lecture platforms. Educators from Central Europe (M = 4.21) and Northern Europe (M = 4.71) indicate the highest values. Once more, educators from Central Europe (M = 3.43) and South Eastern Europe (M = 3.40) have much experience with interactive presentations. Educators from South Eastern Europe are also well experienced with online discussion boards/forums/wikis (M = 3.40). Striking values can be found in the following regions: Educators from Central Europe have no experience with digital educational games (M = 1.79). Educators from Northern Europe have no experience with VR/AR/XR (M = 1.43) and digital simulations (M = 1.43). Educators from Western Europe have no experience with OER (M = 1.77), digital simulations (M = 1.77), e-portfolios (M = 1.77), and VR/AR/XR (M = 1.62).

Experience with Modalities and Tools Based on ProfessionsModalities Learners

Learners’ experience with modalities based on professions is presented in Fig. 2. Across professions, much experience can be found concerning synchronous learning. Whereas cancer nurses (M = 3.75), medical oncologists (M = 3.50), and pathologists (M = 3.56) also have much experience with blended learning, radiation oncologists (M = 3.00) and surgical oncologists (M = 3.14) reveal less experience with this modality. Learners within the field of clinical oncology demonstrate the least experience with blended learning (M = 2.50). As to asynchronous learning, cancer nurses are the most experienced (M = 3.92), clinical oncologists (M = 2.50), and radiation oncologists (M = 2.53) are the least experienced. Medical oncologists (M = 3.58) and pathologists (M = 3.50) have more experience with hybrid learning than the overall target group. Learners within the field of pathology have much experience with all modalities.

Figure 2

Experience with modalities and tools based on professions

Educators

Compared to the overall sample, a similar pattern can be found across professions (Fig. 2), with pathologists indicating the highest value in synchronous learning (M = 4.33). As to blended learning, medical oncologists (M = 3.23) and pathologists (M = 3.00) have less experience than the overall target group. Among clinical oncologists, a rather low value can be found with regard to asynchronous learning (M = 2.50). Educators within the field of cancer nursing (M = 3.75) and radiation oncology (M = 3.60) are more experienced with hybrid learning compared to the overall sample.

Tools Learners

Compared to the overall sample, a similar pattern can be found across professions (Fig. 2). Except for learners within the field of clinical oncology (M = 2.75), learners have much experience with live lecture platforms. Clinical oncologists are most experienced with podcasts/audio lectures/audiobooks (M = 3.25) and online discussion boards/forums/wikis (M = 3.25). Medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and pathologists reveal much experience with video tutorials, podcasts/audio lectures/audiobooks, and e-books. Besides, cancer nurses have much experience with LMS (M = 3.58); pathologists have much experience with interactive presentations (M = 3.56) and social media (M = 3.69). Striking values can be found within the following professions: Learners within the field of cancer nursing have quite limited experience with MOOCs (M = 1.75), digital educational games (M = 1.75), OER (M = 1.67), VR/AR/XR (M = 1.67), digital simulations (M = 1.42), and e-portfolios (M = 1.42). Clinical oncologists have no experience with VR/AR/XR (M = 1.75), digital simulations (M = 1.75), e-portfolios (M = 1.75), e-assessment tools (M = 1.50), and LMS (M = 1.25). Learners within the field of medical oncology have no experience with VR/AR/XR (M = 1.75); radiation oncologists have no experience with digital simulations (M = 1.59) and VR/AR/XR (M = 1.53).

Educators

Educators’ experience with digital teaching tools based on professions is presented in Fig. 2. Across professions, educators are most experienced with live lecture platforms, with pathologists indicating the highest value (M = 4.33). Besides, radiation oncologists have much experience with interactive presentations (M = 3.80); pathologists demonstrate much experience with video tutorials (M = 3.67). Striking values can be found within the following professions: Again, educators within the field of cancer nursing have no experience with MOOCs (M = 1.75), digital educational games (M = 1.63), digital simulations (M = 1.50), and VR/AR/XR (M = 1.25). Clinical oncologists have no experience with MOOCs (M = 1.75), VR/AR/XR (M = 1.75), digital simulations (M = 1.75), e-books (M = 1.75), social media (M = 1.75), and digital educational games (M = 1.50). Educators within the field of medical oncology have no experience with e-portfolios (M = 1.77) and digital simulations (M = 1.62); surgical oncologists have no experience with digital simulations (M = 1.67), VR/AR/XR (M = 1.44), digital educational games (M = 1.44), and e-assessment tools (M = 1.33).