Teaching practice (practicum) is widely regarded as a basic component in teacher education programs (Levis and Farrell, 2007; Mutlu-Gülbak, 2015; Ismail and Jarrah, 2019). It is during this training that teachers can improve their levels of essential competences as well as introduce in the classroom competencies that are consistent with their personality, abilities, and tendencies (Davies and Rogers, 2000). However, as Kim (2019) shows, teacher competences are different from teaching competences. The first ones include all the knowledge, attitudes, and skills that are necessary for teaching, while the second are related to their practical implementation (European Commission, 2013). Nevertheless, both types should be intertwined (Rossner, 2017).

Among these, the linguistic competence stands out, which can be defined as the competence “providing learners with linguistic skills that enable them to understand the language, its rules, and grammars which control it and control the characteristics of its components” (Raslan, 1998, p. 128). This competence also includes the knowledge and self-perceptions that teachers have about their own linguistic competence so that they will be able to improve their teaching competence (Borg and Edmett, 2019).

Several studies show that preservice teachers’ competence perceptions are essential to improve teaching practice during preservice training: see Gutierrez (2015); Suarez and Basto (2017), and Kim (2019) on English as a foreign language competences, Alvarez-García et al. (2018) on environmental competencies, Reinoso et al. (2019) on science or Tarraga-Minguez et al. (2021) on digital competencies, all cases in Spanish-speaking universities.

In addition, preservice teachers self-evaluate their competences, including their linguistic abilities, taking into account their beliefs (Zingoni and Byron, 2017; Kim, 2019). These can be described as “a proposition which may be consciously or unconsciously held, is evaluative in that it is accepted as true by the individual, and is therefore imbued with emotive commitment; further it serves as a guide to thought and behavior” (Borg, 2001, p. 186). As Kim (2019) states, it seems that teacher’s beliefs play some role in evaluating their competence, including their linguistic competence. Previous research studies support the idea that trainee teachers’ beliefs may be influenced and modified throughout the practicum by several factors, such as being exposed to a real classroom, facing personal experiences that may change their self-image, student behavior or the characteristics of the institution (Suarez and Basto, 2017; Uibu et al., 2017), which can later influence job persistence (Kim and Corcoran, 2018).

In the last few years, regulations and laws on the protection of personal data have emerged. These laws protect the rights of minors, mainly in relation to the recording of images when using new technologies. For example, Marín et al. (2021) study the relationship between the use of social networks by minors and preservice teachers and data privacy. Cobo (2019) shows the consequences of the massification of technologies and their impact on new modes of power and control of society, one of the axes being the loss of privacy. Given these tensions, teachers may find themselves caught between “contradictory technological imperatives” (Leatham and Robertson, 2017), as they are encouraged both to make an innovative use of technology in their classrooms and to protect Students’ privacy. Based on the results of this study, Leatham and Robertson (2017) suggest that some teachers may feel unprepared to select and implement digital tools in their classroom, even though they feel there is a need to use technology (Krueger and Moore, 2015). A further example, unrelated to education but very eloquent, is online shopping, where the convenience provided by the digital tool often overrides the user’s concern or caution for their own privacy (Miyazaki and Fernandez, 2001).

As technology has advanced to provide valuable learning tools, parents and policymakers have begun to raise concerns about the privacy of student data held by schools. Laws are intended to protect students and their families, but they have not and will not be able to keep pace with the rapid evolution of technology (Krueger and Moore, 2015).

In Spain, the article 111.bis of the Organic Law 2/2006 on Education (BOE, 2006) establishes in section “Discussion” that educational administrations and school management teams shall promote the use of Information and Communication Technologies in the classroom as an appropriate and valuable didactic mean to carry out teaching and learning tasks. In this sense, the recording of practices or knowledge tests is one more working methodology for the teaching professional.

The Covid19 pandemic has had a strong impact in all areas. All schools and universities in Spain have been forced to seek immediate (and effective) solutions in order to ensure the continuity of educational activity, whether through video-calls, online classes or virtual classroom platforms. When it comes to carrying out this activity, many doubts have arisen, mainly focused on data protection.

Since image, sound and text recordings constitute a processing of personal data, all those involved (teachers and students) must be informed about the data processing that is carried out. As a result, the broadcasting of recorded lessons may violate the fundamental right to data protection, as well as the right to one’s own image and intellectual property rights. According to case law, the recording could involve a violation of the current legislation and the rights of citizens for one or more of the following reasons (Delegación de Protección de Datos, 2021):

According to Spanish law, with regard to the recording of lessons, a distinction must be made between materials:

Some examples of purposes would be:

Most universities have data protection policies that comply with the different regulations and laws that apply to them. For example: Harvard University,¹ Stanford University,² which explains how they use personal data, or Cambridge University,³ which explains how they treat the data of the person who visits their website.

In Spain, the majority of universities collect data in accordance with the principles set out in Article 5 of the GDPR. It fact, we should highlight the specific information that is available on the website of the University of Vigo.⁴ The information provided on this page is very comprehensive and the website includes information about data protection, definitions and principles, data processing activities, rights, regulation and documentation, virtual teaching and assessment and online resources (which includes the recording of classes and exams and the rights of both students and teachers).

Information and communication technologies are part of the daily life of both teachers and students in any type of education. Technology alone has no pedagogical value, it is essential to manage this resource in an appropriate manner. The numerous multimedia resources available in the classroom, together with the Students’ interest in them, with online video and the YouTube tool being among the most flexible materials, are an advantage when it comes to approaching the teaching-learning process and adapting it to individual differences (Cabero et al., 2005; Cabero, 2006). Because today’s information is digitized, online resources represent one of the most common sources for learning among university students (Goldman et al., 2007).

According to Bartolomé Pina (2008), the use of free resources (i.e., personal e-mail, public or private websites, blogs, YouTube videos, chat via Skype or Zoom) that include visual elements develops useful digital competencies and generates greater effectiveness and empowerment in tutorial situations. In fact, the YouTube educational channel shows an increasing influence on teaching and learning (Berk, 2009; Snelson, 2011; Rodríguez Villalobos and Fernández, 2017; Tudini and Dooly, 2021). In this sense, there are experiments such as the one carried out by Sung et al. (2016) that focused on researching the effects of embedded mobile devices on teaching and learning.

In addition, it seems that the use of video recordings in self-assessing one’s performance are correlated with a positive effect in motivation and interest and a desire for improvement (Hirschel et al., 2012). The use of video tools also enhances the meta-cognitive skills of both students and teachers that allows them to regulate their own comprehension and reflect on their professional development (Brevig, 2006; Toci et al., 2015).

Among the characteristics of ICT tools we can find that they promote learning opportunities that can help guide preservice teachers in how they acquire and apply knowledge (Abell and Cennamo, 2004; Kersting et al., 2009; Blomberg et al., 2014; Gold and Holodynski, 2017) or reflect, improve and apply changes in pedagogy during school practices (Christ et al., 2014; Chilton and McCracken, 2017; Lebak, 2017; Barth-Cohen et al., 2018). Therefore, visual language tools are seen as a much more versatile medium that captures the complexity of classroom situations (Miller and Zhou, 2007; Newhouse et al., 2007; Shepherd and Hannafin, 2008; Sherer and Shea, 2011; Blomberg et al., 2013).

A number of researchers have studied the use of different visual language tools for reflective practice during practicum for preservice teachers, especially online videos: McCoy and Lynam (2021) found that the vast majority of participants (n = 35) were highly motivated about this experience and they were able to identify different ways in which video footage helped them critically evaluate their performance, Santagata and Angelici (2010) suggested that a methodology that included the use of videos of classroom teaching helped the reflections on mathematics teaching on a sample of preservice teachers (n = 34), especially if this intervention is guided, and Santagata and Guarino (2011) found that video-based activities were able to support a sample of preservice teachers’ (n = 27) learning and reasoning.

Newhouse et al. (2007) and Shepherd and Hannafin (2008) interviewed 10 preservice teachers who had analyzed videos of their own teaching and concluded that the videos helped them to see their teaching from multiple perspectives, or to discover aspects that they had previously overlooked thanks to the videos. Similarly, they refer to the “slowing down” effect: videos of their own teaching practice allowed them to reflect on classroom events that they had not noticed while teaching in class due to time pressure and the immediate need to act (Borko et al., 2008; Rosaen et al., 2008; Snoeyink, 2010).

Preservice teachers claim to have difficulties with classroom management so as not to neglect the individual approach to each student (Kounin, 1970; Giallo and Little, 2003; Romano, 2007). They report receiving insufficient preparation in classroom management during their teacher training (Meister and Melnick, 2003; Romano, 2007; O’Neill and Stephenson, 2012; Gold et al., 2020) as well as having difficulties in assessing their own abilities, including linguistic ones (Brevig, 2006; Toci et al., 2015). One of the procedures to avoid this is the use of videos.

Van den Bogert et al. (2014) suggest that the study of their own or other teachers’ videos allows student teachers to compare, contrast and reflect on their memories of a lesson taught in combination with a video of this lesson. Kane et al. (2016) highlighted the advantages of using video technology with preservice teachers from the perspective of school administrators, universities, or providers. Furthermore, there are programs that use video in order to develop pedagogical skills independent from specific disciplines among preservice teachers, such as understanding student thinking or reflective practice (Masingila and Doerr, 2002; Stockero, 2008; Marsh et al., 2010). Other programs emphasize the development of teachers’ understanding of particular subject areas (Schrader et al., 2003; Ling Wong et al., 2006; Llinares and Valls, 2009; Wang et al., 2015). However, the majority of research available do not take into account the inherent complexities posed by data privacy regulations and how they affect to the integration of video technology in the classroom.

The participants were a convenience sample of 29 preservice teachers in their final year of a 4-year program in Elementary or Early Childhood Education at the University of Vigo (Spain). The sample consisted of 22 women and 7 men, with an average age of 22.93 (SD = 2.099) of which 12 were final year students of the degree in Early Childhood Education and 17 were final year students of the degree in Elementary Education. All the preservice teachers responded to a survey after their teaching practicum period (ranging from 7 to 8 weeks) in the aforementioned schools.

Due to the fact that this research was not compulsory and only student volunteers participated in it, we could not expand our number. However, we believe that our results can serve as a basis for future studies on this subject.

The authors (all of them university teachers) designed a questionnaire that was made up of 12 closed-ended questions that follow the Likert scale and one open-ended question for general reflection (What are your impressions of this method?). The questions focused on the motivation and interest of the students with respect to the videos viewed, comprehension, learning, perceived usefulness, and the problem arising with the privacy of the Students’ personal data. The responses were classified and, at the end, an elementary statistical analysis of the data collected was carried out, calculating the frequency of responses, the percentages they represent and organizing them in a table for analysis. The justification of the Likert scale rating used is included in the next section.

Before implementing the questionnaire, we followed several stages (Figure 1). All the authors were also involved in the course development of the teaching practicum and its practice through close contact with the tutors. The first stage began with a talk on what the practicum consisted of and what was expected of its realization, an analysis of the situation and the identification of the content of the material, the target audience and the objectives to be pursued. Subsequently, the guidelines for the design of the video were proposed, knowing the availability of the material for the recording of the videos, the activities to be performed in the classroom as well as the authorization to be able to carry it out.

Stage 2 consists of the execution of the practicum itself with three aspects. The first is the development of a normal class; the second is the possibility of recording a video on the behavior of the students and the internship teacher, supported at certain times by the senior lecturer of the class, who acts as a tutor and coordinator of the class. In the case of impossibility of recording for any of the reasons mentioned before, the UvigoTV newspaper library will be available⁵ (Figure 2).

Stage 3 consists of using the tutor’s video recordings, either through new videos or by going to the UvigoTV newspaper library where 21,624 videos are available from all fields of knowledge, mainly conferences and congresses. There is another section of MOOCs but they are not accessible.

Stage 4 is the completion of the questionnaire and, as an optional task, students have the possibility of adapting the video to comply with privacy regulations (Figure 3). For example, they are taught that faces can be pixelated/blurred in the video. However, it is a rather laborious process; becoming more complicated as the number of faces and movements increase. Any free multi-track video editing program of limited sophistication, such as ShotCut⁶ or AVSDC⁷ allow the students to do it manually.

On the other hand, free professional programs such as DavinceResolve⁸ or paid programs such as Adobe Premiere⁹ allow for the tracking of the subject to be pixelated but the use of the tool is a little complex for someone with no experience. In addition, for the tracking of the person to be correct, it must be taken into account that, when recording, the background should be mostly flat and the faces to be blurred should not overlap too much.

In short, pixelating a large number of children, if the video is a little long, can be a very laborious task, even for a professional, if it has not been recorded under certain conditions that make it easy for the automated tool. In this sense, what is often done is to record the whole frame out of focus from the beginning. This way, everything is sensed but everything is out of focus. In addition, using any of the free programs mentioned above, teachers could also blur the entire video, a task that is much more feasible and easier to do.

As step 5, activities were designed to be carried out after the observation in order to keep track of it, help students identify their competences as well as any errors acquired during the observation process, and analyze the quality and quantity of the information acquired and its deepening impact (Cabero et al., 2005).

For the questionnaire, we used as a main tool a Likert-type scale, which is one of the most widely used measurement tools in Educational Sciences and Social Sciences. The Likert scale is a psychometric response method mainly used in questionnaires to obtain the level of agreement with a given statement using an ordinal scale. Among researchers, there is no clear consensus on the form and design of the scale format. Probably the most commonly used item is the 5-level scale (chosen in our study), but 4, 7, or 10-level scales are also used. Two well-known situations tend to occur, central tendency bias where the two extreme options are avoided, or acquiescence bias where there is a tendency to agree with the statements presented. The scoring used in the present study is shown on Table 1.

Establishing the internal consistency of a scale approximates the validation of what has been designed. Scales can be validated with the use of a standard of reference to quantify the correlation that exists between the items that compose it. For this purpose, we calculated Cronbach’s alpha value (see Equation 1) and the result of its validity was checked against Table 1.

Equation 1, where Si2 is the variance of item i, St2 is the variance of the total observed values and k is the numbers of questions or items.

After implementing the scale, we calculated the frequencies and percentages of the results obtained. In addition, because reliability makes it possible to measure the accuracy of the questionnaire and thus obtain consistent results (the higher the reliability, the lower the error), we calculated the reliability of the questionnaire using Cronbach’s alpha.