I agree to the point that it is easier to communicate and to ask questions in F2F trainings. What I really like to do is to talk to the speaker(s) during the coffee breaks - no possibility to do that in online trainings. Nevertheless it depends on each participant if he/she gets involved or not. I had many (maybe to many) examples of trainings, where people were present because they had to do so... (e.g. GCP update required by Ethics Committee or internal SOPs). Those people showed no motivation in the F2F training nor were they active during the training - just sitting there, answering mails etc. They all passed the test at the end of the training. >> What I experienced is that if someone is required/forced to participate in a GCP training and has no internal motiviation, in most cases they will not show much engagement. On the other hand, if people are motivated and recognise the sense of the training they will benefit from an online training as well as from a F2F training and they actively participate. >> The German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM) conduct the so-called "Ringvorlesungen" for students and interested persons. During the winter semester the lectures are being held online - and yes, there is less interaction during and after the lecture. Nevertheless, some people do ask questions and have some remarks but there are more discussions in F2F events.