Wow, Shyam, that response is an entire blogpost all its own! (As if we have not spent the last few days writing and writing and talking together haha).
I don’t disagree with any of what you said, but context is everything.
First, you mention the order of preference for your students: f2f supplemented with online. This is exactly what I am suggesting to my students. We meet f2f once a week. I was suggesting they work online in between and collaborate synchronously or asynchronously (electrical cuts make the former difficult even though they are only 4)
Second, my students are adults. These particular four are all full-time teachers who are also mothers. They do not have the “luxury” of meeting f2f more often than we already do.
So in my case, logistics would prevent additional f2f meetings. The actual assignment they’re collaborating on really does not require f2f meetings (trust me on this: they are each supposed to evaluate diff tools and create a prototype of how they would use it THEN meet somewhere to decide which to use. Even this final step can be done synchronously online for example because loads of f2f meetings and discussions have already taken place and more will come).
So.. Apologies for not providing enough context for that one. I agree online collaboration might not be “good enough” for ALL contexts. Am pretty sure i say that in my post. I was just suggesting they think of alternatives before they insist on f2f. Does that make sense?
But I really value the detail and nuances in your response. And I do know how great of an online collaborator you are (obviously!) – but as you say the context is different: we don’t have the privilege of f2f. But believe me, I have the privilege of doing loads of stuff with great colleagues f2f, and great things come out of it, but qualitatively different greatness is going to come out of my work with you (inshallah). I have a gut feeling about that.