Continuity and Quality in Pre-Service Teacher Preparation Across Modalities: Core Principles in a Crisis Leadership Framework

Abstract

Teacher preparation programmes must now ensure instructional continuity and quality across face-to-face, online, and hybrid modes, even amid health, climate, or security crises. This mixed-methods study examined which principles policymakers and teacher education directors deem essential for such resilience, and how those principles align with prior research and leadership theory. Semi-structured elite interviews (N = 25) were analyzed inductively to surface field-driven themes and deductively through two models: the ten evidence-based training principles synthesized by Hadad et al. and the six capacities of Striepe and Cunningham’s Crises Leadership Framework (CLF). Results show strong consensus on theory–practice integration, university–school partnerships, and collaborative learning, mapping chiefly to the CLF capacities of adaptive roles and stakeholder collaboration. Directors added practice-oriented priorities—authentic field immersion, formative feedback, and inclusive pedagogy—extending the crisis care and contextual influence dimensions. By contrast, policymakers uniquely stressed policy–academic co-decision-making, reinforcing complex decision-making at the system level. Reflective thinking skills and digital pedagogy, though prominent in the literature, were under-represented, signalling implementation gaps. Overall, the integrated model offers a crisis-ready blueprint for curriculum design, partnership governance, and digital capacity-building that can sustain continuity and quality in pre-service teacher education.

1. Introduction

Effective teacher training programmes (TTPs) are widely recognized as central to shaping pre-service teachers’ (PSTs’) professional development, instructional readiness, and long-term commitment to the profession (Furner & McCulla, 2019). Prior studies show that the perceived quality of TTPs strongly influences PSTs’ motivation, engagement, and intention to persist (Flores et al., 2014; Jamil et al., 2012; Sumantri et al., 2018). Early, meaningful teaching experiences further raise self-efficacy and reduce attrition (Rots et al., 2007; Sumantri et al., 2018).

A substantial amount of literature underscores the value of robust partnerships between academic institutions and schools, benefiting both PST preparation and the professional growth of teacher educators (Avidov-Ungar, 2016; Avidov-Ungar & Shamir-Inbal, 2017). Such collaboration promotes ongoing reflection and tighter theory–practice alignment (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011; Kriewaldt & Turnidge, 2013). However, integrating theory and practice remains challenging; effective practicum models require structured higher-education–school collaboration and ample time for experiential learning (Flores, 2020; Ginsburg, 2018). The COVID-19 pandemic intensified those challenges while accelerating blended and fully online formats in teacher education (Al Abiky, 2021; Sayir et al., 2022; Zhao & Watterston, 2021). Digital tools are now integral to preservice preparation in both campus-based and remote settings (Avidov-Ungar & Herscu, 2020; Tondeur et al., 2016), underscoring the need for flexible, technology-enabled programme designs (Carrillo & Flores, 2020; Kurt, 2017).

Parallel scholarship has distilled recurring principles of effective TTPs, with active engagement, authentic field experience, and strong pedagogical role-modelling among them (Altstaedter et al., 2016; Buck et al., 2010; Ingersoll & Strong, 2011; Weber et al., 2018; Xie & Cui, 2021). A systematic review synthesized these into ten key components that enhance programme quality (Hadad et al., 2023a). Yet, most studies emphasize conceptual or practitioner perspectives and seldom examine how policy architects and institutional leaders translate such principles into programme design. This reflects a scholarly gap, as most research emphasizes conceptual frameworks rather than decision-makers’ perspectives. At the same time, a practice gap remains: teacher education programmes often struggle to maintain practicum continuity during crises when mentoring and authentic classroom engagement are disrupted.

Recent crises, including pandemic lockdowns, climate-related disruptions, and security emergencies, have introduced a heightened imperative: pre-service training must persist even when schools close or shift online to safeguard instructional continuity, quality, and stakeholder wellbeing (Hadad et al., 2024). In Israel, recurrent conflict-related school closures and periods of national emergency have repeatedly disrupted on-site practicum, requiring programmes to pivot rapidly to online and hybrid alternatives (Hadad, 2025; Hadad & Deshen, 2025). These conditions highlight the vulnerabilities of existing models and reinforce the need for crisis-resilient teacher preparation. Striepe and Cunningham’s Crises Leadership Framework (CLF) identifies six leadership capacities that help sustain schooling in times of disruption: crisis care, adaptive roles, stakeholder collaboration, multidimensional communication, complex decision-making, and contextual influences (Striepe & Cunningham, 2022). Embedding these capacities in TTPs could future-proof the profession by preparing PSTs for instructional continuity under duress.

Accordingly, this study aims to identify the core principles that underpin effective TTPs across face-to-face, online, and hybrid modes, with particular attention being paid to crisis readiness. It draws on elite interviews with two groups of key decision-makers, Ministry of Education policymakers and directors of teacher education in academic colleges, whose strategic vantage points illuminate how programmes are conceptualized and enacted (Goldstein, 2002; Harvey, 2011; Richards, 1996). By integrating these field-based insights with evidence from the research literature and mapping them onto the CLF, this study identifies areas of convergence and divergence between theory and practice while proposing an adaptable model for guiding future TTP design. The resulting framework seeks to enhance inclusivity, flexibility, and crisis resilience in teacher education systems undergoing rapid pedagogical and technological change.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Challenges Confronting Pre-Service Teacher Education Programmes

Pre-service programmes face a stubborn theory–practice gap, largely attributable to limited and fragmented practicum experiences (Flores et al., 2014; Sumantri et al., 2018). This shortage of authentic classroom exposure undermines novices’ classroom-management confidence and responsiveness to real-world demands, thereby reinforcing calls for more integrated clinical learning (Butler & Monda-Amaya, 2016; Rasmussen & Rash-Christensen, 2015; Resch & Schrittesser, 2021). Complex, diverse classrooms compound the challenge, as future teachers must master differentiation, inclusive pedagogy, and continually evolving policies and curricula (Brown, 2010; Butler & Monda-Amaya, 2016; Tasdemir et al., 2020; Taylor & Ringlaben, 2012). When inadequately addressed, these pressures heighten stress, foster burnout, and drive attrition (Jamil et al., 2012). Therefore, programmes require proactive, evidence-based designs that cultivate professional growth, resilience, and instructional competence (Donitsa-Schmidt & Ramot, 2020).

Beyond individual competencies, teacher education curricula must integrate broader imperatives such as democratic engagement, cultural diversity, and environmental sustainability (Keegan, 2024; Tran, 2024; Flores, 2020). Despite strong policy rhetoric, many graduates report feeling underprepared to address civic dilemmas, confront systemic inequities, or embed sustainability meaningfully in their practice (Al Abiky, 2021; Donitsa-Schmidt & Ramot, 2020). Embedding these themes through explicit modelling and applied learning is therefore essential—not only for bridging the policy–practice gap, but also for equipping teachers to respond effectively to civic, environmental, and systemic crises across educational settings (Chaaban, 2025; Zhao & Watterston, 2021).

2.2. Strategic Approaches to Strengthening Pre-Service Programmes

Research highlights several strategic approaches for strengthening pre-service programmes, particularly in addressing persistent challenges such as the theory–practice gap, limited clinical exposure, weak support networks, and the demand for inclusive, justice-oriented pedagogy (Kimmelmann & Lang, 2019; Resch & Schrittesser, 2021; Sumantri et al., 2018). At the centre of these approaches is collaboration: peer, mentor, and academic learning communities foster co-construction of knowledge and reflective practice, enabling theory to be contextualized and applied in adaptive ways (Kimmelmann & Lang, 2019; Valtonen et al., 2017). In addition, targeted mentoring, formative feedback, and structured assessment processes further build decision-making competence and professional confidence (Altstaedter et al., 2016; Buck et al., 2010; Weber et al., 2018; Xie & Cui, 2021).

Synthesizing this body of work, a systematic review by Hadad et al. (2023a) distilled ten integrative principles that directly respond to these recurring challenges and provide a coherent framework for programme design:

• Active, application-oriented coursework integrates inquiry projects, micro-teaching, and simulation tasks to promote deep engagement and professional readiness (Resch & Schrittesser, 2021; Sumantri et al., 2018).
• Authentic field immersion provides extended placements with observation–co-teaching cycles that expose PSTs to complex classroom dynamics and real-time decision-making (Drexhage et al., 2016; Ingersoll & Strong, 2011).
• Structured reflection employs guided journals, video-based self-analysis, and critical incident discussions to build cognitive flexibility and adaptive expertise (Flores et al., 2014; Sanchez-Caballe et al., 2020).
• Peer communities of practice use cohort seminars, online forums, and collaborative lesson study to supply mutual support and shared problem-solving (Kimmelmann & Lang, 2019; Valtonen et al., 2017).
• Expert mentoring features ongoing dialogue, demonstration lessons, and iterative feedback loops that model effective practice and scaffold competency growth (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011).
• Formative assessment of theory in practice relies on rubric-aligned observations, e-portfolios, and performance assessments to verify classroom competence and guide improvement (Buck et al., 2010; Donitsa-Schmidt & Ramot, 2020).
• Tight theory–practice links connect campus assignments with practicum tasks through case-based learning and field-anchored coursework, thereby reinforcing transfer (Furner & McCulla, 2019; Rasmussen & Rash-Christensen, 2015).
• University–school partnerships establish shared governance, reciprocal professional development, and joint supervision arrangements that align expectations and resources (Kimmelmann & Lang, 2019).
• Structured collaborative tasks such as team lesson planning, problem-based scenarios, and design thinking sprints deepen collective inquiry and shared understanding (Hadad et al., 2024).
• Equity focused role modelling sees faculty enact culturally responsive, democratic, and sustainability-oriented pedagogy, offering concrete templates for future classrooms (Altstaedter et al., 2016; Xie & Cui, 2021).

Together, these principles offer a coherent, research informed framework capable of meeting the evolving demands of teacher preparation.

2.3. Technology-Enabled Continuity as a Future-Proof Strategy

Integrating technology into pre-service teacher (PST) training addresses the theory–practice gap, limited fieldwork, and the demand for flexible learning environments (Donitsa-Schmidt & Ramot, 2020; Farjon et al., 2019; Tondeur et al., 2016). Spurred by COVID-19, emergency remote and hybrid models have become staples of teacher education globally, including Israel (Al Abiky, 2021; Hadad et al., 2024; Sayir et al., 2022). Online practicum models mirror face-to-face learning through digital tools that foster engagement, peer interaction, and timely feedback (Sanchez-Caballe et al., 2020; Weber et al., 2018; Yustina et al., 2020). These platforms facilitate collaborative reflection and flexible content delivery, helping PSTs internalize pedagogy (Tondeur et al., 2016; Valtonen et al., 2017). Real-time supervision and virtual coaching further narrow the theory–practice divide (Drexhage et al., 2016; Kurt, 2017). Moreover, simulations and gamified environments provide safe, experiential spaces that build competence and metacognitive awareness (Cózar-Gutiérrez & Sáez-López, 2016; Farjon et al., 2019).

Hybrid approaches such as flipped classrooms blend online theory with in-person application, boosting adaptability (Donitsa-Schmidt & Ramot, 2020; Kurt, 2017). In addition, connected-classroom ecosystems link PSTs, mentors, and faculty across virtual and physical sites, sustaining collaboration and practicum continuity (Drexhage et al., 2016; Weber et al., 2018). Digital logs and feedback dashboards also support formative assessment and ongoing professional growth (Hadad et al., 2024; Kurt, 2017). Collectively, these technology-enhanced models transpose collaboration, mentoring, reflection, and authentic experience into digital contexts, delivering scalable, future-ready teacher preparation (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011; Valtonen et al., 2017).

2.4. Teacher Training Frameworks Under Recurrent Crises

Israel’s teacher education policy couples intensive clinical practice with innovative pedagogy through initiatives such as the Academy-Classroom partnership, which embeds preservice teachers (PSTs) in year-long co-teaching roles across varied age levels and subjects (Grinshtain & Salman, 2023; Sasson et al., 2020). These placements elevate self-efficacy and commitment, yet conflict-driven school closures and COVID-19 lockdowns repeatedly disrupt on-site training, forcing swift pivots to remote practicum (Avidov-Ungar & Zamir, 2024; Donitsa-Schmidt & Ramot, 2020). Studies of the October 2023 war in Israel show that maintaining continuity, online or hybrid, bolstered teacher and student wellbeing (Hadad, 2025; Hadad & Deshen, 2025).

Such disruptions foreground the six capacities in Striepe and Cunningham’s (2022) Crises Leadership Framework (CLF): (1) crisis care, (2) adaptive roles, (3) stakeholder collaboration, (4) multidimensional communication, (5) complex decision-making, and (6) contextual awareness. Israeli programmes respond by extending mentor support online (crisis care), reallocating supervisory roles (adaptive roles), linking universities and schools via shared digital platforms (stakeholder collaboration), operating multi-channel communication plans (multidimensional communication), making rapid curricular adjustments (complex decision-making), and tailoring responses to community needs (contextual awareness). To date, few studies in Israel have examined policymakers and programme directors together in relation to teacher preparation design. Most research has considered either institutional practices or policy frameworks separately. Internationally, such dual-stakeholder studies are also limited, underscoring the originality of the present approach.

Study Purpose and Research Questions

Despite abundant conceptual work on effective teacher training principles, limited empirical evidence captures how policymakers and programme directors prioritize these principles across face-to-face, online, and hybrid environments, especially during crises. At the same time, a practice gap persists, as existing initiatives remain vulnerable to crisis-related school closures and rapid shifts to online practicum. This study therefore addresses both the scholarly gap and the practice gap by exploring stakeholders’ perspectives on safeguarding practicum quality under disruption. Leveraging the CLF as an analytical lens, it examines how field leaders interpret, prioritize, and operationalize training principles to ensure continuity. It addresses three questions:

• RQ1. Which principles do policymakers and directors identify as essential for effective pre-service teacher preparation across face-to-face, online, and hybrid settings, particularly under conditions of disruption?
• RQ2. How do the two stakeholder groups differ in the priority they assign to these principles, reflecting both scholarly emphases and practical constraints?
• RQ3. To what extent do the interview-derived principles align with the established literature and with the capacities of the Crises Leadership Framework (CLF)?

3. Materials and Methods

A convergent mixed-methods design combined inductive thematic with deductive content analysis (Creswell & Clark, 2017; Fetters et al., 2013; Proudfoot, 2023). To capture the perspectives of two key stakeholder groups in Israel—education policymakers and teacher education directors—we conducted semi-structured elite interviews. Elite interviewing is a well-established qualitative strategy for accessing the views of highly influential decision-makers, offering specific guidance on entry, engagement, and the use of semi-structured protocols (Goldman & Swayze, 2012; Goldstein, 2002; Harvey, 2011; Richards, 1996). Inductive coding generated themes, while deductive coding applied Hadad et al.’s ten principles alongside the six Crises Leadership Framework characteristics (Striepe & Cunningham, 2022; Hadad et al., 2023a). Statement frequencies were compared with chi-square tests (Castleberry & Nolen, 2018; Collins, 2021; Fakis et al., 2014). Both qualitative and quantitative strands were analyzed in parallel, and triangulation further enhanced validity (Busetto et al., 2020; Roller & Lavrakas, 2015).

3.1. Participants

Semi-structured elite interviews were conducted with twenty-five participants, including five senior policymakers from the Israeli Ministry of Education and twenty directors of teacher education from accredited academic institutions. Together, these groups represent the two key stakeholder levels responsible for designing and implementing teacher training programmes. This study employed purposive sampling to ensure that participants held direct responsibility for teacher preparation policy and programme design. Policymakers were recruited through formal invitations issued via the Ministry of Education, and programme directors were approached through official college contacts and professional networks. Eligibility was limited to senior leaders responsible for teacher preparation policy or programme design. Recruitment was carried out through formal invitations, with participants receiving study information and providing informed consent. To safeguard ethical integrity, invitations emphasized that participation was entirely voluntary, independent of participants’ institutional or ministerial roles, and that declining would carry no professional consequences. All invitees received written information about the study, assurances of confidentiality, and provided informed consent prior to participation.

Policymakers in the Ministry of Education (MoE): The five participants hold senior leadership roles within the MoE and are directly responsible for national teacher education policy. Although the Ministry includes a larger number of officials, only a small subset of senior leaders oversees teacher preparation policy. The selected policymakers therefore represent the core group shaping national decision-making in this domain. Four manage major divisions within the ministry, and one directs a national institute for teacher training research and development. The group included three women and two men.

“Directors of Teacher Education (Unit Head)”: Israel has 36 accredited institutions offering pre-service teacher education, most of them academic colleges (approximately 25–27). The sample of 20 directors therefore represents a substantial and diverse share of this population. These participants were responsible for all aspects of teacher education programmes in their institutions, including curriculum development, faculty supervision, instructional methods, and alignment with national policies. The group included directors from both Hebrew-speaking (n = 11) and Arabic-speaking (n = 3) colleges, reflecting the national demographic distribution. Among them, 16 were women and 4 were men.

3.2. Instruments and Procedure

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with policymakers and TTP directors via Zoom. Ethical approval was obtained from Achva Academic College’s Institutional Review Board (Approval No. 0010, Chair: Dr. Irina Vladimirovsky, approved 18 January 2021, valid until 17 January 2022) in accordance with the ethical standards of the Institutional Review Board and the Declaration of Helsinki, as revised in 2013. Data collection occurred between June and August 2021.

Participants shared perspectives on essential principles for implementing teacher training programmes across face-to-face, online, and hybrid environments, reflecting evolving contexts in pre-service teacher education in response to technological, pedagogical, and societal shifts. Interviews were recorded for analysis purposes. The interview guide, developed using established elite interviewing protocols (Harvey, 2011; Richards, 1996), employed open-ended questions allowing participants to identify key principles, with follow-up probes on programme implementation, partnerships, adaptation strategies, and contextual considerations. Content validity was ensured by review, designed to elicit comprehensive responses without leading participants toward predetermined frameworks. This approach enabled spontaneous input and systematic coverage of domains for subsequent CLF analysis, with construct validity demonstrated through successful coding across both analytical frameworks while maintaining response authenticity. The complete interview guide is provided in Appendix A.

The participants’ responses were analyzed using two different methods:

• An inductive, bottom-up thematic analysis. This method was used to identify the main topics and themes that emerged directly from the participants’ responses, without relying on a predefined coding framework (Braun & Clarke, 2012; Yin, 2015; Proudfoot, 2023). Through this inductive process, categories and subcategories were developed to reflect the key principles perceived as essential for effective TTPs.
• A deductive, top-down content analysis. Interview transcripts were systematically coded against two a priori schemes. The first comprised the ten evidence-based teacher training principles distilled by Hadad et al. (2023a)—(1) active, application-oriented coursework; (2) authentic field immersion; (3) structured reflection; (4) peer communities of practice; (5) expert mentoring; (6) formative assessment of theory in practice; (7) tight theory–practice links; (8) university–school partnerships; (9) structured collaborative tasks; and (10) equity-focused role-modelling. These are principles widely endorsed in the literature (Altstaedter et al., 2016; Buck et al., 2010; Ingersoll & Strong, 2011; Weber et al., 2018; Xie & Cui, 2021). The second scheme captured the six characteristics of the Crises Leadership Framework (CLF): crisis care, adaptive roles, stakeholder collaboration, multidimensional communication, complex decision-making, and contextual influences (Striepe & Cunningham, 2022). Each statement was coded on both axes—training principle and CLF characteristic—enabling direct comparison with mainstream teacher education research and simultaneous testing of alignment with a crisis leadership lens central to this study.

The analysis treated each statement, not the interviewee, as the unit of meaning, enabling fine-grained coding and theme detection (Busetto et al., 2020; Koren, 2023; Roller & Lavrakas, 2015). In total, the dataset comprised 429 coded statements: 252 common to both groups, 46 specific to the five policymakers, and 131 specific to the 20 directors. Statement frequencies for policymakers versus directors were compared via a chi-square test; categories with |standardized residual| > 2 were considered influential (Sharpe, 2015). Interview-derived principles were then contrasted with literature-based principles to gauge alignment and divergence.

To ensure consistency in the coding process, inter-rater reliability was calculated for both the bottom-up content analysis and the top-down systemic analysis. A second rater trained by the researchers independently analyzed 25% of the statements, and the agreement level between the two raters was high, with Cohen’s Kappa = 0.88. Furthermore, to ensure methodological rigour, this study integrated elite interviews with key stakeholders, comprising policymakers from the Ministry of Education and directors of teacher education in academic colleges, alongside an analysis of the research literature, as recommended by Natow (2020). Through the triangulation of data, this study aimed to deepen the understanding of effective teacher training programmes, thereby enhancing the credibility of our findings.

4. Results

In alignment with the study’s research questions, this section distils the principles stakeholders view as essential for sustaining pre-service training during face-to-face, online, and hybrid instruction in turbulent times. It contrasts the priorities of Ministry policymakers with those of teacher education directors and assesses how each principle aligns with prior research. Following the dual-analysis strategy, every interview statement was first coded inductively and then deductively on two predefined axes: (1) the ten literature-derived training principles and (2) the six characteristics of the Crises Leadership Framework (CLF) (Striepe & Cunningham, 2022).

Table 1. Shared teacher training principles identified by policymakers and teacher education directors, with literature support and Crises Leadership Framework (CLF) mapping (N = 252).

Inductive Analysis								Deductive Analysis
Principle	Total		SR	Policymakers		TTP Directors		Presence in the Literature	Mapped CLF Characteristic(s)
	N	%		N	%	N	%
Establishing a strong connection between theoretical knowledge and practical application	113	44.1%	+8.82	43	38%	70	62%	Yes (#7)	Adaptive roles; contextual influences
				SR = +4.29		SR = −2.15
				X2(1) = 21.90, p < 0.001
Collaboration between academic institutions and training schools	49	19.1%	−0.20	11	24%	38	76%	Yes (#8)	Stakeholder collaboration
				SR = +0.38		SR = −0.19
				X2(1) = 0.06, p = 0.80
Collaborative learning as a preparation for collaborative teaching	45	17.6%	−1.18	6	13%	39	87%	Yes (#9)	Complex decision-making; adaptive roles
				SR = −1.00		SR = +0.50
				X2(1) = 0.88, p = 0.86
Preparing PSTs for teaching through innovative methods	28	10.9%	−3.3	5	18%	23	82%	Partially (#1, #10)	Adaptive roles; multidimensional communication
				SR = −0.25		SR = +0.13
				X2(1) = 0.02, p = 0.97
Preparing PSTs for constructivist teaching–learning	21	8.2%	−4.14	8	38%	13	62%	Partially (#1, #2, #10)	Stakeholder collaboration
				SR = +1.5		SR = −0.93
				X2(1) = 3.24, p = 0.072
	X2(4) = 107.21, p = 0.001

Notes: (1) N = number of statements. (2) Frequencies were adjusted for the sample size (5 policymakers; 20 TTP directors). (3) SR values above ±2 indicate meaningful deviations (Sharpe, 2015). (4) “#” refers to the numbering of training principles listed in the text.

,

Table 2. Policymaker-specific teacher training principles, their support in the literature, and Crises Leadership Framework (CLF) mapping (N = 46).

Inductive Analysis				Deductive Analysis
Principle	Total		Standardized Residuals	Presence in the Literature	Mapped CLF Characteristic(s)
	N	%
Collaboration and shared decision-making between policymakers and higher education institutions in determining policies	35	76.1%	+2.50	No	Stakeholder collaboration; complex decision-making
Creating a collaborative learning community involving teachers, instructors, and pre-service teachers (PSTs)	11	23.9%	−2.50	Partially (#4, #10)	Stakeholder collaboration; crisis care
	X2(1) = 11.5, p < 0.001

Notes: (1) N represents the number of statements analyzed. (2) SR values above ±2 indicate meaningful deviations (Sharpe, 2015). (3) “#” refers to the numbering of training principles listed in the text.

and

Table 3. Director-specific teacher training principles, support in the literature, and CLF mapping (N = 131).

Inductive Analysis				Deductive Analysis
Principle	Total		Standardized Residuals	Presence in the Literature	Mapped CLF Characteristic(s)
	N	%
Real-time field observations and authentic experience	68	27.4%	+6.65	Yes (#2)	Adaptive roles; contextual influences
Providing feedback and formative assessment for the PSTs	62	25.0%	+5.57	Yes (#6)	Crisis care; adaptive roles
Preparing PSTs for differentiation and inclusive education	24	15.7%	+1.44	No	Crisis care; contextual influences
Cooperation and collaboration within the college team	21	8.5%	−1.80	No	Stakeholder collaboration
Offering a diverse range of teaching approaches supported by a solid theoretical foundation	20	8.1%	−1.98	Yes (#1, #2, #4, #10)	Adaptive roles; complex decision-making
Choosing highly experienced teacher trainers	16	6.5%	−2.69	Yes (#5)	Crisis care; adaptive roles
Utilizing classroom simulation for peer and instructor evaluations	12	4.8%	−3.41	Yes (#1, #2, #6)	Multidimensional communication; complex decision-making
Preparation for integrated technology teaching	10	4.0%	−3.77	Partially (#1, #10)	Multidimensional communication; adaptive roles
	X2(7) = 0.117, p < 0.001

Note: (1) N represents the number of statements analyzed. (2) SR values above ±2 indicate meaningful deviations (Sharpe, 2015). (3) “#” refers to the numbering of training principles listed in the text.

report the inductive principles, their group frequencies, and two deductive markers: presence in the literature and mapped CLF characteristic(s). Table 1 lists the principles shared by both groups, while Table 2 and Table 3 present the principles unique to policymakers and programme directors, respectively. The narrative highlights significant differences, core themes, and illustrative quotes. Table 1 presents the principles identified by both policymakers and directors, showing their relative frequencies, presence in the literature, and alignment with CLF capacities.

As shown in Table 1, both groups strongly emphasized strengthening the theory–practice connection, followed by collaboration between universities and schools and collaborative learning. Innovative and constructivist teaching were mentioned less frequently but still mapped to relevant CLF capacities. Overall, these findings indicate broad consensus on the foundational elements of programme design. The most prominent shared principle was strengthening the theory–practice nexus, which was mapped to the CLF capacities of adaptive roles and contextual influences. Although both groups endorsed this principle, policymakers raised it more frequently (SR = +4.29). One director captured the perennial challenge: “There is a constant tension in this profession between theory and practice, and we are always thinking about how to connect the conceptual, theoretical parts to the practical parts” (A.S. 2).

Two further joint principles, university–school cooperation and collaborative learning, correspond to the CLF capacity of stakeholder collaboration and mirror the eighth and ninth principles in the literature. A director underscored the first: “Collaboration between the college and the field is crucial … it combines academic knowledge with practical experience led by teachers in schools” (A.S. 3). Another stressed the second: “Students work collaboratively at all times, engaging in shared lesson planning and testing, which fosters teamwork” (A.S. 7).

Finally, references to innovative and constructivist pedagogy linked to the CLF’s adaptive roles and complex decision-making, surfaced less frequently, and, consistent with previous studies, were embedded within broader notions of active learning and authentic fieldwork rather than being presented as standalone principles. This directly addresses RQ1 by identifying the principles that both policymakers and directors judged essential for effective pre-service teacher preparation across face-to-face, online, and hybrid settings.

Table 2 summarizes the principles raised exclusively by policymakers, with their frequencies, presence in the literature, and CLF mapping.

As indicated in Table 2, policymakers prioritized policy–academic collaboration, which does not appear in the ten literature-based principles but clearly aligns with the CLF capacities of stakeholder collaboration and complex decision-making. This systemic orientation reflects policymakers’ focus on governance and joint decision-making structures. As one senior official explained: “This ongoing dialogue with program coordinators creates a stable platform for joint decision-making” (P.M. 1).

They also advocated collaborative learning communities involving teachers, mentors, and PSTs—aligning with stakeholder collaboration and, by supporting collective wellbeing, crisis care. Although less frequent, this principle echoes the literature on professional learning communities. Taken together, neither principle appears as a standalone item in the study by Hadad et al. (2023a), highlighting how field actors extend the literature to address crisis-resilient governance and partnership needs.

Table 3 presents the principles identified only by directors of teacher education, with their frequencies, presence in the literature, and CLF mapping.

As shown in Table 3, directors of teacher education programmes identified eight principles absent from the policymaker set, most of which centre on field experience and the dynamic relationships among instructors, pre-service teachers, and school-based mentors. Their two most frequently cited items, engaging trainees in real-time classroom immersion and providing continuous formative feedback, map to the Crises Leadership Framework (CLF) capacities of adaptive roles and crisis care. One director illustrated the depth of this immersion: “Pre-service teachers spend three days a week at the school. They accompany teachers, observe classes, participate in school activities, and eventually deliver lessons in coordination with both the pedagogical instructor and the training teacher” (A.S. 15). Such sustained engagement, coupled with iterative feedback, fosters an immersive learning culture resilient to external disruptions.

Directors also emphasized preparing pre-service teachers for differentiation and inclusive education, an equity-oriented priority that aligns with the CLF dimensions of crisis care and contextual influences yet does not appear in the policymaker corpus. Exposure to varied learning theories across face-to-face, online, and hybrid modes further supports adaptive roles, enabling candidates to adjust pedagogy when circumstances require rapid pivots.

Additional director-specific principles, including the selection of highly experienced teacher trainers, the use of classroom simulations for peer and instructor evaluation, and preparation for technology-integrated teaching, extend the CLF capacities of stakeholder collaboration, multidimensional communication, and complex decision-making. As one director noted, “Integrating technology into pre-service training required time and convincing pedagogical instructors of its significance as an integral part of lesson planning and training” (A.S. 4). Collectively, these insights expand the literature-based framework by showing how programme-level practices can embed crisis-resilient leadership traits and safeguard practicum quality when on-site training is curtailed. These findings address RQ2 by highlighting the different emphases of the two groups: policymakers prioritized systemic governance and policy–academic collaboration, whereas directors stressed practicum immersion, formative feedback, and inclusive pedagogy.

Integrating Inductive and Deductive Findings: Conceptual Model

Table 4. Integration of inductive and deductive findings.

Inductively Emerged Principle	Deductive Findings
	Presence in the Literature	Dominant CLF Characteristic(s)
Strong theory–practice connection	✔ Close links between theory and practice (#7)	Adaptive roles/contextual influences
Collaboration between academia and schools	✔ HE–school cooperation (#8)	Stakeholder collaboration
Collaborative learning for future teamwork	✔ Collaborative opportunities (#9)	Stakeholder collaboration/crisis care
Innovative teaching methods	▲ Active learning; role-modelling (#1, #10)	Adaptive roles/multidimensional communication
Constructivist teaching–learning	▲ Active learning; field immersion (#1, #2)	Complex decision-making/adaptive roles
Policy–academic shared decision-making	✘ Not in framework	Stakeholder collaboration/complex decision-making
Collaborative learning community (teachers–instructors–PSTs)	▲ Peer community; role-modelling (#4, #10)	Stakeholder collaboration/crisis care
Real-time field immersion	✔ Authentic experience (#2)	Adaptive roles/contextual influences
Formative feedback and assessment	✔ Skill-application assessment (#6)	Crisis care/adaptive roles
Differentiation and inclusive pedagogy	✘ Not in framework	Crisis care/contextual influences
Intra-college cooperation	✘ Not in framework	Stakeholder collaboration
Diverse, theory-grounded teaching approaches	✔ Multiple principles (#1, #2, #4, #10)	Adaptive roles/complex decision-making
Selecting experienced mentors	✔ Experienced coaching teachers (#5)	Crisis care/adaptive roles
Classroom simulation for peer/instructor evaluation	✔ Multiple principles (#1, #2, #6)	Multidimensional communication/complex decision-making
Preparation for technology-integrated teaching	▲ Active learning; role-modelling (#1, #10)	Multidimensional communication/adaptive roles

Notes: ✔ = fully present; ▲ = partially present; ✘ = absent in the literature framework.

consolidates the dual-axis analysis by listing every principle that surfaced in the interviews, indicating whether it is captured in the ten-principle literature framework, and showing the Crises Leadership Framework (CLF) capacity it exemplifies. This three-way mapping enables direct comparison between stakeholder experience, established scholarship, and crisis leadership theory, precisely the triangulation presented by this Special Issue on Emerging Trends in Educational Leadership: Crisis-Resilience and Future-Proofing Schooling. By demonstrating how field-driven priorities such as policy–academic co-decision-making, inclusive pedagogy, and technology-integrated teaching reinforce or extend CLF capacities like stakeholder collaboration, crisis care, and multidimensional communication, the table provides an evidence-based foundation for designing programmes that maintain practicum quality when education systems face climate, health, or conflict-related disruptions. The conceptual model that follows builds on this synthesis to offer a transferable framework for leaders seeking to embed resilience and adaptability in teacher preparation ecosystems.

Table 4 provides a textual matrix of how practice-based principles intersect with both the ten-principle literature set and the six capacities of the Crises Leadership Framework (CLF). Inductive coding thus added several principles, including policy–academic decision-making, inclusive pedagogy, and intra-college collaboration, that extend the ten-principle set and flesh out the CLF capacities of stakeholder collaboration, crisis care, and contextual awareness. Conversely, neither stakeholder group raised reflective and critical-thinking skills (#3), a staple of the literature but perhaps taken for granted in crisis discourse. This integration addresses RQ3 by demonstrating how interview-derived principles align with, extend, or diverge from both the ten literature-based principles and the six CLF capacities.

Figure 1 translates that matrix into a visual schema, grouping principles that are shared by both stakeholder groups, exclusive to the interviews, or present only in prior research and tagging each with its dominant CLF capacity. The figure therefore offers an at-a-glance guide to designing teacher preparation programmes that remain viable across face-to-face, online, and hybrid contexts during periods of disruption.

Figure 1 highlights three patterns relevant to sustaining continuity and quality during disruption. First, the large cluster of shared (green) principles shows a strong consensus on practices that primarily reinforce adaptive roles and stakeholder collaboration, capacities vital for keeping practicum pathways open when conditions change. Second, inductive-only principles (blue) extend the model by adding complex decision-making and equity-oriented crisis care, dimensions less visible in previous research yet crucial for crisis readiness. Third, the single deductive-only item (yellow) indicates that the literature’s emphasis on reflective skills has not yet been fully internalized by field leaders. Taken together, the figure suggests that aligning on-the-ground priorities with CLF capacities yields a comprehensive blueprint for teacher preparation programmes that can deliver continuous, high-quality training across delivery modes.

5. Discussion

This study explored core principles underpinning effective pre-service teacher training programmes (TTPs) across face-to-face, online, and hybrid settings with the explicit aim of safeguarding instructional continuity and quality during disruptive events. A convergent mixed-methods design combined qualitative insights from elite interviews with educational policymakers and teacher education programme directors, alongside a literature-informed content analysis. Inductive bottom-up thematic analysis enabled the emergence of field-driven themes, while deductive top-down analysis applied ten literature-based principles from Hadad et al. (2023a), and the six crisis leadership characteristics articulated by Striepe and Cunningham (2022), together with supporting empirical studies (e.g., Altstaedter et al., 2016; Kimmelmann & Lang, 2019; Resch & Schrittesser, 2021; Sumantri et al., 2018). This dual strategy revealed both alignment and divergence between theory and practice, thereby clarifying the extent to which teacher training priorities activate the six crisis-resilient leadership capacities identified by Striepe and Cunningham (2022), capacities considered indispensable for sustaining educational continuity during natural disasters, or military conflict-related disruptions. Overall, the findings directly address the three research questions: they address RQ1 by clarifying the shared core principles across stakeholder groups, RQ2 by contrasting the distinct emphases of policymakers and directors, and RQ3 by mapping these perspectives onto established literature and the CLF. Accordingly, the discussion is organized into three sections—convergence, divergence, and gaps and silences—to synthesize the study’s findings.

5.1. Convergence: Principles Shared Across Stakeholders and the Literature

A strong alignment was observed between several principles identified in the literature and those emphasized by both policymakers and TTP directors. Most notably, both groups highlighted the importance of bridging theory and practice, a principle that was especially prevalent among policymakers and strongly reflected in policy documents and research (Avidov-Ungar & Zamir, 2024; Grinshtain & Salman, 2023; Resch & Schrittesser, 2021). This principle, though ranked seventh in Hadad et al.’s (2023a) literature-based framework, emerged as the most frequently mentioned in field interviews and was viewed as the linchpin for maintaining continuity and quality when programmes shift delivery mode. From a CLF perspective, this shared priority primarily exemplifies the capacities of adaptive roles and contextual influences, signalling that stakeholders view flexible knowledge transfers as foundational to maintaining instructional continuity during disruption (Striepe & Cunningham, 2022).

Additional shared principles included collaboration between academic institutions and schools, and collaborative learning as preparation for collaborative teaching. These align with the eighth and ninth principles in Hadad et al.’s framework and underscore the growing emphasis on partnerships and teamwork in teacher preparation globally (Valtonen et al., 2017; Kimmelmann & Lang, 2019). Both principles map onto the CLF capacity of stakeholder collaboration, reinforcing the notion that multi-agency partnerships are central to crisis-resilient, quality-preserving schooling (Striepe & Cunningham, 2022). Although innovation and constructivist approaches surfaced less overtly in interviews, they were embedded in discussions of active learning and authentic practicum experiences, suggesting that the field increasingly treats “innovation” as implicit within broader experiential designs rather than as a discrete goal. Viewed through the CLF, these design choices cultivate multidimensional communication and complex decision-making, capacities that facilitate seamless instructional continuity during rapid pedagogical pivots.

5.2. Divergence: Unique Contributions from Policymakers and TTP Directors

Beyond the shared principles, each stakeholder group contributed distinct priorities. Policymakers emphasized two principles not found in the top ten literature-based list: policy–academic collaboration and the formation of collaborative learning communities involving instructors, teachers, and trainees. These reflect a systemic, structural perspective on programme development and implementation, echoing emerging calls in the literature for more dynamic policy–practice partnerships (Altstaedter et al., 2016; Sasson et al., 2020). Both principles correspond to the CLF capacities of stakeholder collaboration and complex decision-making, illustrating how top-down governance can enable agile responses in periods of uncertainty (Striepe & Cunningham, 2022).

Conversely, TTP directors, who are more intimately connected with the operational and pedagogical dimensions of training, identified eight additional principles grounded in practice. Among the most prominent were engaging trainees in real-time field experiences and providing formative feedback and assessment—principles well-supported in the literature (Buck et al., 2010; Weber et al., 2018; Xie & Cui, 2021). These align with the CLF capacities of adaptive roles and crisis care, respectively, by positioning novice teachers as active agents who receive socio-emotional support amid shifting instructional contexts. They also emphasized preparing pre-service teachers for inclusive and differentiated instruction, highlighting the need to equip future educators to address the growing diversity of learners, an area gaining prominence in more recent research (Taylor & Ringlaben, 2012; Donitsa-Schmidt & Ramot, 2020). This equity-oriented principle advances the CLF’s crisis care and contextual influences dimensions. Other principles emphasized by TTP directors included choosing highly experienced mentors, offering varied teaching strategies, and leveraging classroom simulations for peer and instructor evaluations. Although these were less frequently mentioned in literature reviews, they reflect emerging best practices in experiential and competency-based teacher education. Both principles correspond to the CLF capacities of stakeholder collaboration and complex decision-making, illustrating how top-down governance can enable agile responses in periods of uncertainty (Striepe & Cunningham, 2022). Collectively, these director-led emphases reinforce multidimensional communication and adaptive roles, enhancing readiness for remote or hybrid pivots without sacrificing instructional quality.

5.3. Unspoken Priorities: Blind Spots in Professional Training Principles

While the findings revealed a robust range of principles, certain critical areas were noticeably underrepresented in both interview groups. Most significantly, the principle of developing trainees’ reflective thinking, critical thinking, and analytical skills—central to professional growth and teacher autonomy—was absent from participants’ responses despite its strong theoretical grounding in the literature (Sanchez-Caballe et al., 2020; Weber et al., 2018; Hadad et al., 2023b). This omission suggests a possible gap in emphasis or implementation within current training programmes and warrants further attention in both policy and practice. From a CLF perspective, reflective practice strengthens complex decision-making; its absence indicates a leadership capacity that may need deliberate cultivation. Similarly, although participants were explicitly asked to address training across face-to-face, hybrid, and online environments, principles related to technological readiness and digital pedagogy received limited attention. Despite the acknowledged value of simulations and technology-integrated teaching (Drexhage et al., 2016; Cózar-Gutiérrez & Sáez-López, 2016), these areas were less emphasized than might be expected, particularly in light of the global shift toward hybrid models during and after the COVID-19 pandemic (Al Abiky, 2021; Sayir et al., 2022). This shortfall maps to the CLF’s multidimensional communication capacity, underscoring the need for stronger digital leadership components in TTPs to secure learning continuity in crisis contexts. In practical terms, this highlights the need to elevate digital competencies within teacher education, especially in hybrid environments where flexibility, collaboration, and digital fluency are essential.

These silences reveal potential blind spots in both policy formulation and academic programme design. They also suggest a need for greater investment in hybrid learning infrastructure, mentor training, and formative feedback systems that leverage digital tools effectively. Furthermore, raising stakeholder awareness about the transformative potential of technology-enhanced teaching may support the full integration of such practices into TTPs.

Importantly, the principles identified in this study, particularly those cited by TTP directors, may reflect aspirational or normative frameworks rather than fully enacted practices. For example, while inclusive pedagogy and theory–practice integration were frequently mentioned, participants did not provide detailed accounts of how these priorities are implemented or assessed within programmes. This discourse–practice gap suggests that some principles function more as rhetorical commitments than as systematically embedded components of teacher education. Addressing this tension is essential for understanding how principles are translated into action, and future research should attend to this distinction.

6. Conclusions

Pre-service teacher education programmes worldwide face well-documented challenges—limited practicum time, theory–practice gaps, equity demands, and escalating digital expectations. These issues intensify in volatile contexts, where crises such as armed conflicts, natural disasters, epidemics, or other large-scale disruptions cause rapid shifts between on-site and remote instruction. As a result, early crisis preparation must now be recognized as a universal design priority. Addressing these challenges requires not only theoretical insight but also context-sensitive and practical guidance for policymakers and institutions to build programme resilience and ensure continuity across diverse educational settings.

Building on the ten literature-based principles and the six capacities of the Crises Leadership Framework (CLF), and enriched by the perspectives of policymakers and programme directors, this study developed a comprehensive model that integrates research-driven principles with context-sensitive practices. The eight actionable domains distilled here emerge directly from the study’s three research questions: RQ1, which focuses on identifying the principles judged essential for effective PST preparation; RQ2, which involves contrasting how policymakers and directors prioritize these principles; and RQ3, which involves mapping field-derived perspectives onto existing scholarship and the CLF.

Together, these domains translate the findings into concrete recommendations for enhancing quality and resilience in pre-service teacher preparation across face-to-face, online, and hybrid environments:

• Curriculum development. Integrate theory with hands-on tasks, active engagement, and authentic fieldwork across delivery modes.
• Pedagogical approaches. Employ collaborative, constructivist, and inclusive strategies to meet diverse learner needs.
• Field experiences. Provide sustained school immersion, mentoring, and reflective practice—even in remote formats—to cultivate adaptive roles and crisis care.
• Assessment and feedback. Use continuous formative assessment to refine instructional decisions in real time.
• Collaborative partnerships. Strengthen college–school–mentor networks that can pivot together when disruptions occur.
• Policy–practice coordination. Foster joint decision-making between ministries and training institutions to align objectives and contingency plans.
• Technology integration. Embed digital literacy, simulation, and hybrid-learning design so that instructional continuity is feasible under lockdown or conflict.
• Crisis preparedness. Explicitly train pre-service teachers in the six CLF capacities—crisis care, adaptive roles, stakeholder collaboration, multidimensional communication, complex decision-making, and contextual awareness—to ensure resilience during future climate, health, or security emergencies.

By embedding these domains, teacher education programmes can operationalize CLF capacities and extend the ten evidence-based principles, thereby advancing programme quality, safeguarding instructional continuity, and strengthening teacher readiness in times of both stability and disruption.

7. Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Several constraints temper the interpretation of these findings. First, the study is situated solely in Israel’s teacher education system. This single-country setting, with its unique structural, cultural, and security conditions, may not account for dynamics in other countries or regions. Transferability should therefore be approached with caution. Second, although triangulation was achieved by sampling policymakers and programme directors, the findings rely exclusively on self-reported interview data. Such perceptions may diverge from enactment of the identified principles and of the CLF capacities they are presumed to develop. Third, the investigation stopped at the level of espoused beliefs. It neither observed programme activities nor measured how principles are operationalised during routine instruction or acute crises; consequently, potential gaps between policy rhetoric and instructional reality remain unquantified. Fourth, the study omitted other pivotal actors—pre-service teachers, school-based mentors, and pedagogical supervisors—whose experiences could confirm, contest, or nuance the reported priorities. Fifth, security-related time constraints limited the number and length of interviews, possibly narrowing the range of viewpoints captured. Finally, as several years have passed since the data were collected, the findings may not fully reflect current conditions in teacher education.

These limitations suggest several directions for future research. Future work should (a) reassess the model in light of more recent developments, (b) incorporate observational or evaluative methods that track how CLF-aligned principles are implemented and with what outcomes, (c) include a wider stakeholder spectrum to build a multi-voiced account of crisis preparedness in teacher education, and (d) test the model in diverse geopolitical and crisis contexts—including those shaped by natural disasters, epidemics, and security emergencies—to assess its external validity. Such research would strengthen the evidence base for translating crisis-resilient principles from policy discourse into sustained classroom practice.