


































Frontiers of Contemporary Education 
ISSN 2690-3520 (Print) ISSN 2690-3539 (Online) 

Vol. 3, No. 4, 2022 

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce 

23 
 

Original Paper 

Teaching Using a Face Protection Mask: How Students of 6-15 

Years Old Perceive Their Teachers’ Expressing Emotions 

during the Teaching Procedure 

Maria Bimpa
1
, Ioannis Fykaris

1
 & Vasileios Zagkotas

1*
 

1
 University of Ioannina, Greece, 

*
 Vasileios I. Zagkotas, University of Ioannina, Greece 

 

Received: October 14, 2022    Accepted: October 24, 2022   Online Published: November 22, 2022 

doi:10.22158/fce.v3n4p23              URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/fce.v3n4p23 

 

Abstract 

One of the basic measures to prevent the Covid-19 infection is the use of a face protection mask by 

students and teachers in school premises and, mainly, in teaching. A question, however, is whether the 

covered part of the face is a barrier to the recognition of the expressed emotions of the wearer, a fact 

that may affect communication and interaction in teaching. On this basis, this article attempts to 

investigate how 6-15 year olds perceive the emotions of persons wearing a face protection mask. The 

research was conducted using the Case Study method and an “Emotion Recognition Sheet” in 1st, 3rd 

& 5th grade of Greek Primary School and in the first three Grades of secondary school (Gymnasium). 

The participant students were asked to observe photos of adult persons wearing a face mask and then 

to recognize the emotions of the presented adults. The research findings revealed a 62% failure of the 

students in recognizing emotions. This fact highlights the need to develop a teaching proposal to deal 

with this situation, in order to strengthen students’ communication ability, which is a key factor in 

achieving effective learning. 

Keywords 

teaching, face protection mask, emotions, perception ability, learners 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 3, No. 4, 2022 

24 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

1. Introduction: Recognition of Emotions in People Using a Face Protection Mask (FPM) 

Since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, teaching has been adapted to the necessities of health 

protection measures. In this context, the Face Protection Mask (FPM) was introduced as a basic 

protection measure (Fykaris & Kaldi, 2020). The use of FPM forms a special condition of non-verbal 

communication, by allowing a specifying code of communication signals. More generally, nonverbal 

communication is a universal language of coded signal recognition (Frank, 2016, pp. 47-48), which 

includes the signals emitted by the facial muscles (Allwood, 2002, p. 6), which are not visible when a 

person wears a FPM. Particularly with regard to the emotions, facial expressions seem to play the most 

important role, because they introduce emotional signals that are captured quickly and directly (Ekman, 

2003, p. 58). At the same time, within the context of non-verbal communication, the role of head 

movements is equally important for the transmission of the message (Marshall, 2001, p. 19, p. 72; 

Simonds & Cooper, 2013, p. 5; Postic, 2001, pp. 143-145). 

The use of FPM depicts the expression of an emotion partially, as the FPM almost completely hides the 

lower part of the face. In this way, the learners may find it difficult to distinguish the real intention of 

the teacher’s expressing emotion. These deficiencies or misunderstandings may reduce the intended 

interaction between the participants in teaching procedure (Barmaki, 2014, p. 441). This dimension 

may create confusion between “what it really is” and “what it appears to be”, a fact which may affect 

the way in which the learners perceive the processes of recognizing the emotions of others, but also the 

self-regulation of their behavior in relation to their emotions (Fykaris & Kaldi, 2020). The apparent 

contrast between the truth and the illusion which is created by the use of FPM, may lead to the 

following consequences: 

a) Learners, who are relatively young, such as those who belong to the 6-15 age group, are led to 

uncertain emotional experiences, possibly with unpredictable consequences. In particular, the 

potential disruption of interpersonal communication between learners, but also between 

teacher and learners, may exacerbate issues of fear and anxiety or even lead to phobias 

(Herbert, 2005, pp. 151-163; Gottman, 2015, pp. 252-253; Feldman, 2017, pp. 410-411). In 

addition, the distorted experience of reality in adolescents may increase emotional insecurity 

and a crucial effect on the formation of the individual's identity, since adolescents consider 

very seriously the information they receive from others in their tendency to adopt socially 

acceptable behavioral roles (Feldman, 2017, p. 413). 

b) There is a risk of destabilizing the pedagogical relationship between the teacher and the 

learners. This relationship is based on the communicative process of interaction. In this 

interaction, the individual elements of the communication process are determined and 

controlled, in an attempt to define the content of the communication message (Postic, 2001, pp. 

152-153). In this context, the role of the visual communication is extremely important and 

may determine the outcome of the teaching, while the lack or the obstruction of the 

communication conditions may implicate on the effectiveness of its work (Fykaris, 2010, pp. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 3, No. 4, 2022 

25 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

207-209). Moreover, a non-effective nonverbal communication may cause confusion among 

the learners as to which behavior (and, subsequently, which corresponding reaction) is 

considered desirable (Rosenthal, 2002, pp. 28-33). 

c) The regularity of the learner’s socialization process is affected. The learner forms an opinion 

about his classmates by observing their behavior and interacting with them. This interaction is 

based on communicative stimuli which he/she exchanges with them. A problematic non-verbal 

communication, as in the case of the use of FPM, may cause difficulties in social adaptation, 

but also phobic emotions (Fykaris & Kaldi, 2020), as well as difficulties in developing 

appropriate social relationship management skills (Feldman, Tomasian & Coats, 1999, p. 238). 

d) Given that teaching and learning are based on interactive communication (Subandi, 

Choirundin, Mahmudi, Nizaruddin & Hermanita, 2018, p. 460) the use of FPM makes 

particularly difficult its smooth conduct and, consequently, the achievement of maximum 

possible learning results. The partial expression and recognition of emotions as a result of the 

use of FPM in teaching can affect the achievement of teaching objectives and, consequently, 

the learning outcomes (Baylor & Kim, 2008, p. 208). 

We think that the above arguments clarify that ensuring the effectiveness of communication in teaching 

is a key-point to the whole procedure. Additionally, it seems that the use of FPM emerges as an 

obstacle to the communication between teacher and learners. Teaching with the use of FPM is an 

unprecedented situation, which seems to hinder the expression of non-verbal messages with emotional 

content. For this reason, it is interesting to investigate the ability of the learners to recognize the 

emotions of their teachers who use a FPM. The present paper attempts this investigation through 

case-studies of 6-15 y.o. learners. The next section presents the results of this research. 

 

2. Research Method 

2.1 Main Objective of the Research 

To investigate the perception ability of the students to recognize the emotions of fear, joy, anger, 

surprise, disgust, worry, jealousy, sadness and shame in adults who wear a Face Protection Mask 

(FPM). 

2.2 Emotions Selection Criteria 

The nine (9) emotions of the research (fear, joy, anger, surprise, disgust, worry, jealousy, sadness and 

shame) are selected based on their timeliness and frequency of reference in the literature (Ekman, 1992, 

pp. 172-174; Izard, 1992, pp. 562-564; Griffiths, 2003, pp. 5-7; Saarimäki et al., 2015, pp. 2567-2568; 

Cherry, 2021, pp. 1-10; Ortony, 2021, pp. 6-8). 

2.3 Research Hypothesis 

“The students of the reference age participating in the experimental group have the ability to recognize 

the emotions expressed by adult persons who wear a face protection mask”. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 3, No. 4, 2022 

26 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

2.4 Research Method 

Individual case-studies, in order to identify the ability of learners to recognize emotions in persons 

wearing FPM in different geographical areas of Greece. 

2.5 Type of Sample 

Convenient sample, based on the ease of access to schools by the researchers, given the current health 

protection conditions in schools during the period of the research. 

2.6 Sample Size 

303 male and female elementary and high school students, of which 51 are in 1st Elementary School 

grade, 25 in 3rd Elementary School grade, 80 in 5th Elementary School grade, 54 in 1st Secondary 

School grade, 40 in 2nd Secondary School grade, and 53 in 3rd Secondary School grade.  

2.7 Research Tool 

“Emotion Recognition Sheet”, a tool built by the researchers. The participants were given a sheet in 

which they would observe photos of a male and a female expressing a particular emotion wearing FPM. 

Then, the participants should select from a sideway list the expressed emotion according their opinion. 

Both the presented models (male and female) were photographed expressing the same 9 emotions and 

they each photo was arranged in the Sheet randomly. Therefore, in the “Emotion Recognition Sheet” 

the participants had to complete a total of 18 questions, 9 per each presented model (male and female). 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 3, No. 4, 2022 

27 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Figure 1. Part of the “Emotion Recognition Sheet” Showing the 2 First Questions Given to the 

Participating Learners 

 

2.8 Data Analysis Tool 

SPSS 26 software 

2.9 Models of Emotion Representation 

A male and a female teacher 

2.10 Selection Criterion of the Models 

The models expressing emotions were selected on the basis that they are adults and in an age range of 

teachers or/and parents with whom learners come into contact in activities throughout adults wearing 

FPM. 

2.11 Timetable for Conducting the Survey 

December 20-23, 2021 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 3, No. 4, 2022 

28 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

3. Research General Result 

Initially, the Emotion Recognition Sheet was administered to the Control Group. The processing of the 

extracted data revealed 60.86% success in the recognition of emotions by the students. The average of 

correct answers was 11 out of 18 questions in total. It is worth noting that there was no difference in the 

answers regarding the gender and class of the participating students. Specifically, in terms of gender, 

the success rate was exactly the same (61%) for both sexes. In terms of grade, the range of correct 

answers extends from 10 correct answers (56% success rate for 3rd grade students) to 13 correct 

answers (72% for 1st grade students). However, the rates are different regarding the number of 

students’ siblings. Students without siblings present a success rate of 66.7% (12/18 correct answers), 

students with 2 siblings present a success rate of 61%, students with 3 siblings present a success rate of 

72.2% while the percentages of students with many siblings are lower (50% for students with 4 siblings 

and 39% for students with 5 siblings). However, the last two categories constitute only the 5.5% of the 

sample and, therefore, a small percentage to draw a safe conclusion about the specific categories. 

Hence, we can say that, apart from the students with 4 and 5 siblings who show low rates of emotion 

recognition, the students of the control group recognize in a percentage of 60.86% and an average of 

11/18 successes the emotions of the depicted figures who do not wear a face protection mask. 

Afterwards, the Emotion Recognition Sheet was given to the experimental group to fill out. Regarding 

the gender of the research subjects, it is found that 51.8% of the participants are males and 47.9% are 

females. A 51.5% attend Primary School and 49.5% attend Secondary School. Therefore, there is a data 

isomerization of the relevant variables, so that the conclusions drawn will have reliability and validity. 

The majority of the research subjects stated that they have at least one sibling, while 27.4% of the 

respondents stated that they have two (2) siblings, the majority of whom are of a different gender, 

while there is also a percentage of 15% who stated that they are only children. From the above data we 

can deduce that the subjects of the sample have persons of common reference and expression, such as 

siblings, from whom they can draw experiences, opinions and exchange thoughts and findings 

(Thompson & O’Neill Grace, 2001, pp. 47-58; Colapinto, 2019, p. 109), thus references compatible 

with the subject of this study. 

The survey data shows that the subjects of the sample recognized the represented emotion at a rate of 

39.6%, which means that they failed to correctly recognize 2 out of 3 emotions of the questions (Figure 

2).  

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 3, No. 4, 2022 

29 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Figure 2. Recognition of the Requested Emotion Rates 

 

From the research data it also appears that there is no statistically significant difference in the 

recognition of the emotions expressed. In particular, when the presented model is a male the emotion is 

recognized by the 41.3% of the subjects, while when the presented model is a female the emotion is 

recognized by a 37.8% (Figure 3). It is noted that the highest (76.9%) and lowest (1.7%) percentage of 

emotion recognition occurred in the male model (Figure 4). From this data it is deduced that possibly in 

the male model the expression of the specific emotions -mainly through the movements of the 

eyebrows- is more intense, taking into account that the emotions of “Anger” and “Anxiety” require 

lowering or raising the eyebrows in order to better render the facial expression (Christodoulou, 2019, 

pp. 41-42). 

 

 

Figure 3. Emotion Recognition Rate Per Presented Model 

 

The data also show that the minimum of correct answers given is 0/18, while the maximum of 

successes is 14/18. The average of correct answers is 8/18. Therefore, the data highlight a generalized 

difficulty of the sample subjects in recognizing emotions regardless of gender and age. This is certainly 

an interesting finding, which needs further investigation, in order to highlight the causes of this 

situation. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 3, No. 4, 2022 

30 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Figure 4. Percentage of Emotion Recognition Success Per Presented Model 

 

Moreover, it follows that there is no significant difference to the level of the emotion recognition 

regarding the factor of the number of siblings. From this finding it is deduced that the factors, which 

make difficult for the research subjects to recognize the emotions of adults, who wear a face protection 

mask, are independent of the existence of other siblings. So, it can be said that their siblings also face 

similar difficulties in the ability to recognize emotions. 

 

Table 1. Successful Answers in Correlation to Number of Siblings 

Number of Siblings Gender of siblings 
Subtotals Overall totals 

N % N % 

Siblings: 0 - 7 38,9 7 38,9 

Siblings: 1 

1 Female 7 38,9 

8 42,6 1 Male 8 44,4 

Not stated 8 44,4 

Siblings: 2 

2 Females 7 38,9 

7 37,0 2 Males 6 33,3 

Female + Male 7 38,9 

Siblings: 3 

3 Females 5 27,8 

6 34,7 
1 Male + 2 Females 6 33,3 

2 Males + 1 Female 6 33,3 

3 Males 8 44,4 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 3, No. 4, 2022 

31 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Siblings: 4 
2 Male + 2 Females 6 33,3 

6 30,6 
3 Males + 1 Female 5 27,8 

Siblings: 5 
3 Males + 2 Females 6 33,3 

6 33,3 
4 Males + 1 Female 6 33,3 

 

Table 1, in addition, presents the successful answers of the participating learners by the number of their 

siblings. Those who stated that they have 1 sibling (42.6%) show a little more success. Those who have 

2 or no siblings show M.O. 37% and 38.9% respectively with N = 7 correct answers. Finally, guessers 

with 4 and 5 siblings showed a lowest average recognition (33.3% and 30.6%). No particular 

differences are observed in terms of family composition: the higher average of successful answers are 

shown by learners with 1 or 3 siblings, while the lower average of successful answers is presented by 

participants with three sisters. 

 

4. Further Findings and Discussion 

Recognition of emotions expressed by the female model: 

Regarding the individual emotions (see Figure 2 and Figure 4), when the presented model is a female, 

the results that emerge are as follows (without significant statistical differences depending on the 

gender or age of the research subjects): 

 

 

Figure 5. Facial Expressions of the Selected Nine Emotions by the Female Model 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 3, No. 4, 2022 

32 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 The emotion of “Fear” is recognized at a rate of 28.7% and instead the greater majority of the 

subjects consider that the expressed emotion is “Surprise”. The relatively small percentage of 

recognition may be due to the capture of a “partial expression” of the emotion, as the use of the 

FPM hides the twitches of the mouth and part of the cheeks (Christodoulou, 2019, p. 81). To 

express the emotion of fear, a mouth opening along with an excessive eyes opening and raising of 

the eyebrows are required (see Givens under the entry: “Fear”: http://center-for-nonverbal- 

studies.org/htdocs/fear.htm, retrieved and last accessed: 21.01.2022). Similarly, the same twitches 

are required for the event of “Surprise”, as “Surprise” is an emotion related to “Fear” 

(Christodoulou, 2019, p. 82). 

 The emotion of “Jealousy” is recognized in 47.9%, while the subjects who did not correctly 

recognize this emotion saw “Anxiety” (22.4%) and “Disgust” (12.2%). A similar confusion 

prevailed in the distinction of “Anger”, which was recognized by only a 10.6% of the subjects. The 

expression of “Anger” requires a lowering and furrowing of the eyebrows, a wild stare expression 

(Ekman, 2007, pp. 126-127), where this particular expression is referred to as “glare”. The 

participants recognized this emotion at a low rate, confusing it mainly with “Jealousy” (47.2%) 

where a partial eyebrow raise is required (Ekman, 2007, p. 96). Furthermore, subjects tended to 

confuse “Jealousy” with “Anxiety”, “Disgust” and “Anger”, a fact which can be considered 

relatively expected as the facial elements that make up the expression of “Jealousy” can be 

detected to other emotions as well (Bauminger, 2004, p. 157). 

 The emotion of “Shame” is correctly recognized by a 28.7%, while the 76.6% of the research 

subjects who do not recognize the emotion of “Shame” saw instead the emotions 13.9% of 

“Anxiety” (13.9%), “Sadness” (12.5%) and “Anger” (10.9%). The expression of “Shame” is 

expressed mainly by pursed lips, lowered gaze and slightly tilted head forward or to the side 

(Keltner & Buswell, 1996, p. 165). Lowering the gaze to the partial expression of the emotion of 

“Shame” possibly led the subjects to choose “Sadness” or “Anger” (Ekman, 2003, p. 96). 

 The emotion of “Anxiety” is correctly recognized at a rate of 21.1%. The expression of this 

emotion is characterized by a lowering of the head forward and a partial raising of the eyebrows 

(Condliffe & Maratos, 2020, p. 1397). Subjects misidentified the partial expression of the emotion 

“Shame”, “Joy”, and “Fear”, which require raised eyebrows for their expression. 

 The emotion of “Surprise” is successfully recognized at a rate of 65.7%. This emotion was 

recognized by a relatively large percentage of subjects, as its main characteristic is the excessively 

raised eyebrows and an open mouth (Ekman, 2007, p. 164). Subjects who did not recognize the 

emotion of “Surprise” distinguished “Joy” and “Fear”, the expression of which required eyebrows 

excessively raised and eyes wide-open (Toohey, 2014, pp. 49-53). 

 The emotion of “Sadness” is successfully recognized at a rate of 20.5%. The subjects in this case 

incorrectly recognized the emotion of “Joy” (17.2%), “Jealousy” (17.2%) and “Shame” (16.5%). 

This confusion may be due to the fact that during the partial expression of the emotion of sadness 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 3, No. 4, 2022 

33 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

there is a lifting of the cheeks, a lowering of the gaze and a partial raising of the eyebrows (Ekman, 

2003, p. 96). A raising of the eyebrows is also observed for the expression of the emotion of “Joy” 

(Christodoulou, 2019, p. 85). 

 The fact that a 71.3% of the research subjects recognize the feeling of “Joy” is significant. The 

expression of the emotion of “Joy” requires the formation of a smile. This emotion seems to be 

recognized by a large percentage of subjects during its partial expression due to the distinct 

movement of the eyelid muscles, as a consequence of smiling (Christodoulou, 2019, p. 87; Ekman, 

2007, pp. 204-205). 

 In addition, the research subjects correctly recognize the emotion of “Disgust” in a 45.8% of 

cases. The expression of “Disgust” is captured by a raised upper lip, wrinkled nose, raised cheeks, 

lowered eyebrows and eyelids (Ekman, 2007, pp. 183-187) and this appears to be prominently 

captured in the model’s partial expression of emotion. Subjects who did not recognize the 

expression of “Disgust” responded that they discerned “Anxiety” or “Shame”, possibly misled by 

the lowered eyebrows and eyelids. 

The above interpretations regarding the recognition of emotions in the female model highlight the 

important role of the “integrated expression” when expressing emotions. The “partial expression”, 

which is presented by the person wearing a FPM, allows the recipient of the non-verbal message to 

decode and interpret the expressions of the eyes, eyebrows, upper part of the cheeks, i.e., only the 

upper part of the head. In this way, as evidenced by the above findings, the receiver may misinterpret 

the communicative intent of the sender of the non-verbal message, resulting in failing at the 

communication's objective. At the same time, the above findings lead to the need to compensate for the 

apparent communicative and emotional deficit with other body movements (emphatic hand movements, 

body posture) or with further strengthening of the verbal delivery of the communicative message. 

Finally, regarding the findings of the depictions of the female model, the hypothesis of the research that 

the subjects are expected to recognize the emotions represented, does not appear to be confirmed. 

Recognition of emotions expressed by the male model: 

Consequently, when the presented model is a male (Figure 6), the results that emerge are as follows 

(without significant statistical differences depending on the gender or age of the research subjects): 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 3, No. 4, 2022 

34 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Figure 6. Facial Expressions of the Selected Nine Emotion by the Male Model 

 

 The emotion of “Joy” is recognized by a 67.7% of the research subjects, a percentage 

corresponding to that of the female model. This percentage is due, as mentioned above, to the 

distinct movement of the eyelid muscles caused by the smile (Christodoulou, 2019, p. 87; Ekman, 

2007, pp. 204-205). 

 The feeling of “Worry” was recognized at a rate of 1.7%. This low percentage may be due to the 

fact that the representation of the emotion by the male model with a partial raising of the eyebrows 

and a lowering of the head (Condliffe & Maratos, 2020, p. 1397) is at the same time a 

characteristic of “Anger” expression (Bhushan, 2015, p. 271). This interpretation results from the 

fact that the subjects of the research distinguished “Anger” at a rate of 88.8% in this specific 

question. 

 The emotion of “Disgust” was successfully recognized at a rate of 36%. However, although as to 

the female model the subjects who did not distinguish “Disgust”, stated that they did distinguish 

“Anxiety” or “Shame”, in the male model the incorrect responses focused on “Anger” (24.1%) and 

“Jealousy” (23.8%). The differentiation during the partial expression of the emotion may be due to 

the movements of the eyebrows; the intense contraction (which is not observed in the female 

model), is a characteristic of “Anger”, while their partial elevation refers to the emotion of 

“Jealousy” (Ekman, 2007, p. 96, pp. 126-127). 

 The emotion of “Fear” was recognized at a rate of 23.4% and instead of that, “Shame” was 

incorrectly recognized at a rate of 28.4%. Additionally, the participants stated that they distinguish 

“Anxiety” (19.1%) and “Surprise” (14.9%). This misinterpretation may be due to capturing the 

emotion with head tilted forward, -also a characteristic of “Shame” and “Anxiety”- and with raised 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 3, No. 4, 2022 

35 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

eyebrows, a characteristic of “Surprise” (Condliffe & Maratos, 2020, p. 1397; Christodoulou, 2019, 

p. 82; Keltner & Buswell, 1996, p. 165). 

 It is important to state that as to the male model, the emotion of “Anger” is correctly recognized 

by the vast majority (76.9%) of the research subjects, possibly due to the intense gaze and the 

contraction of the eyebrows. 

 The emotion of “Sadness” on the face of the male wearing a FPM is recognized by a 27.1% of 

the research subjects and instead of this emotion the research subjects incorrectly recognized the 

emotion of “Fear” in a percentage of 22, 4%, “Anxiety” at a rate of 16.2% and “Shame” at a rate of 

15.2%. Each of the individual expression features of “Sadness”, namely the raising of the cheeks, 

the lowering of the gaze and the partial raising of the eyebrows (Ekman, 2003, p. 96) are also 

features of the other emotions. 

 The emotion of “Shame” is recognized at a rate of 19.5% and instead the research subjects 

misidentify the emotion of “Jealousy” (30%), the emotion of “Anxiety” (16.2%) and the emotion 

of “Anger” at a rate of 12.5%. During the partial expression of the emotion, the lowered gaze and 

the slightly forward head are partial features of the other emotions as well (Ekman, 2007, p. 96, pp. 

126-127). For the same reason, the emotion of “Jealousy” is recognized by a 46.5% of the research 

subjects, while from the 53.5% of the research subjects, who do not recognize the correct emotion 

of “Jealousy”, they incorrectly recognize at a rate of 19.1% the feeling of “Anxiety” and the 

feeling of “Shame” (10.2%). 

 Finally, the emotion of “Surprise” is recognized by the vast majority (73.3%) of the research 

subjects as to the male model, perhaps due to the presented strong raising of the eyebrows. 

From the interpretations of the individual emotions in relation to the male model, it is first established 

that there is no difference in the ability to recognize emotions depending on the presented model’s sex. 

Furthermore, the effect of “partial expression” of emotions by covering the mouth, the jaw and the 

lower part of the cheeks seems to have the same effect in the male model, prompting the subjects to 

give incorrect answers. However, in cases where eyebrow movements and eye opening were strongly 

depicted (such as at the cases of “Anger”, “Surprise”, “Joy”) the subjects’ responses as to the male 

model reached high percentages. This finding adds to the practices of compensating for the absence of 

the “complete expression” of emotion (hand movements, body posture, strengthening of verbal 

communication) the need for more emphatic expression of emotions by using the eyes, eyebrows or 

tilting the head. It is pointed out, finally, that regarding the male model, the hypothesis of the research 

that the subjects are expected to recognize the emotions represented cannot be confirmed. 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 3, No. 4, 2022 

36 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

5. Conclusions 

The demographic data extracted of the survey confirm the predominance of the nuclear family type, as 

a 64.3% of the respondents who participated in this survey stated that they have no siblings or that they 

have a brother or sister. 

The research subjects failed to recognize the projected emotions on the adults’ faces at a rate of 60.40%. 

This finding contrasts with the success rate of the control group (61%) and shows that for the present 

research it confirms its initial hypotheses. 

It appears that there are no differences in terms of the age of the learners and the successful answers, as 

the distribution of successes follows the distribution of the sample population. 

An important finding is that the average number of successful responses seems to decrease as the 

number of family members, increases. Children with one sibling achieved an average of 8 successful 

responses, children with no or 2 siblings achieved an average of 7 successes, while the lowest average 

occurred in children with 3, 4 and 5 siblings. However, the difference in the specific averages is small 

enough to draw safe and generalizable conclusions. 

Regarding the questions where the learners failed to identify the represented emotion, occurs a plurality 

of responses. Furthermore, from the processing of the “Emotion Identification Sheets” it emerged that 

the participants in several cases attributed the same emotion to a different expression. 

It also follows that depending on the reference models, the most recognizable emotion as to the female 

model is Joy” while “Anger” is the less recognizable. In the male model’s face, the feeling of “Anger” 

has been recognized more and the feeling of “Worry” less. 

The low success rates in recognizing some emotions appear to be due to their “partial expression” by 

the male and female models. Capturing emotions only with eyes and/or head movements led the 

subjects to confusion of common features and to incorrect responses. This fact highlights the 

importance of the cooperation of all facial muscles in the clear expression of an emotion. At the same 

time, this unavoidable “partial expression” of emotions makes non-verbal communication incomplete 

and highlights the need to make up for the expressive deficit in other ways, such as hand movements 

and body posture, as well as strengthening verbal communication. 

Based on the above research findings, with regard to the recognition of the expressed emotion by 

children-learners of the reference age groups of the present research-both for the female and the male 

model as well-the need for a relative teaching intervention in order to recognize the emotions of 

individuals who wear FPM. The teaching intervention is necessary, in order to avoid the risk of an 

emotional deficit, but also of the level of interpersonal communication between children-parents. On 

this basis, there is a need for designing interventions that will strengthen the teachers’ abilities of 

non-verbal communications features, as well the learners’ abilities to identify these expressions. These 

interventions should aim at (a) the teachers’ use of more intense expression of emotions (with verbal 

expression and body movements) and (b) practicing the students, during the teaching process, in 

recognizing the emotions of persons wearing a FPM. Of course, we hope that the pandemic will reach 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 3, No. 4, 2022 

37 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

is end at wearing a FPM in the classroom will not be the case anymore. 

 

References 

Allwood, J. (2002). Bodily communication dimensions of expression and content. In B. Granström, D. 

House, & I. Karlsson (Eds.), Multimodality in Language and Speech Systems (pp. 7-28). Kluwer 

Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2367-1_2 

Barmaki, R. (2014). Nonverbal Communication and Teaching Performance. Proceedings of the 7
th

 

International Conference on Educational Data Mining (EDM 2014) (pp. 441-443). 

Bauminger, N. (2004). The expression and understanding of jealousy in children with autism. 

Development and Psychopathology, 16, 157-177. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579404044451 

Baylor, A. L., & Kim, S. (2008). The Effects of Agent Nonverbal Communication on Procedural and 

Attitudinal Learning Outcomes. In H. Prendinger, J. Lester, & M. Ishizuka (Eds.), Intelligent 

Virtual Agents, IVA 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 5208, pp. 208-214). Berlin, 

Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85483-8_21 

Bhushan, B. (2015). Study of Facial Micro-expressions in Psychology. In M. K. Mandal, & A. Awasthi 

(Eds.), Understanding Facial Expressions in Communication. Cross-cultural and 

Multidisciplinary Perspectives. New Delhi, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London: Springer. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-1934-7_13 

Cherry, K. (2021). The 6 Types of Basic Emotions and Their Effect on Human Behavior. Retrieved 

February 26, 2022, from 

https://www.verywellmind.com/an-overview-of-the-types-of-emotions-4163976  

Christodoulou, C. (2019). Body Language and Interrogation Techniques. Athens: Private Edition. 

Colapinto, J. (2019). Structural Family Therapy. In B. H. Flese (Ed.), APA Handbook of Contemporary 

Family Psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 107-122). Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/0000101-007 

Condliffe, O., & Maratos, F. A. (2020). Can compassion, happiness and sympathetic concern be 

differentiated on the basis of facial expression? Cognition and Emotion, 34(7), 1395-1407. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2020.1747989 

Ekman, P. (1992). An argument for basic emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 6(3-4), 169-200. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939208411068 

Ekman, P. (2003). Emotions revealed: Recognizing faces and feelings to improve communication and 

emotional life. Times Books/Henry Holt and Co. 

Ekman, P. (2007). Emotions Revealed. Recognizing Faces and Feelings to Improve Communication 

and Emotional Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2367-1_2
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579404044451
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85483-8_21
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-1934-7_13
https://doi.org/10.1037/0000101-007
https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2020.1747989
https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939208411068


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 3, No. 4, 2022 

38 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Feldman, R. S. (2017). Developmental Across the Life Span (8th ed.). Harlow, London, New York, 

Boston, San Francisco, Toronto, Sydney, Dubai, Singapore, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Seoul, Taipei, 

New Delhi, Cape Town, Sao Paulo, Mexico City, Madrid, Amsterdam, Munich, Paris, Milan: 

Pearson. 

Feldman, R. S., Tomasian, J. C., & Coats, E. J. (1999). Nonverbal deception abilities and adolescents’ 

social competence: Adolescents with higher social skills are better liars. Journal of Nonverbal 

Behavior, 23, 237-249. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021369327584 

Frank, M. (2016). Understanding Nonverbal Communication. Chantilly: The Teaching Company. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/14669-003 

Fykaris, I. (2010). Contemporary dimensions of teaching work and the role of the teacher. Thessaloniki: 

Kyriakidis Brothers Publishing House S.A. 

Fykaris, I., & Kaldis, S. (2020). Didactic proposal for the management of consequences from the use of 

a face protection mask in pre-school and first school age children. Retrieved August 10, 2022, 

from https://tinyurl.com/2mjwt4uv  

Griffiths, P. (2003). III. Basic Emotions, Complex Emotions, Machiavellian Emotions. Royal Institute 

of Philosophy Supplement, 52, 39-67. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1358246100007888 

Herbert, M. (2005). Developmental Problems of Childhood and Adolescence. Prevention, Treatment 

and Training. Malden, Oxford, Carlton: BPS Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470773888 

Izard, C. E. (1992). Basic emotions, relations among emotions, and emotion-cognition relations. 

Psychological Review, 99(3), 561-565. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.3.561 

Keltner, D., & Buswell, B. N. (1996). Evidence for the Distinctness of Embarrassment, Shame, and 

Guilt: A Study of Recalled Antecedents and Facial Expressions of Emotion. Cognition and 

Emotion, 10(2), 155-171. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999396380312 

Marshall, L. (2001). The Body speaks. London: Methuen Drama. 

Ortony, A. (2021). Are All “Basic Emotions” Emotions? A Problem for the (Basic) Emotions 

Construct. aps. Association for Psychologiagal Science (pp. 1-21). 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620985415 

Postic, M. (2001). La Relation Educative. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. 

https://doi.org/10.3917/puf.post.2001.01 

Rosenthal, R. (2002). The Pygmalion Effect and its Mediating Mechanisms. In J. Aronson (Ed.), 

Improving Academic Achievement. Impact of Psychological Factors on Education (pp. 25-36). 

San Diego: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012064455-1/50005-1 

Saarimäki et al. (2015). Discrete Neural Signatures of Basic Emotions. Cerebral Cortex, 26(6), 

2563-2573. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhv086 

Simonds, C., & Cooper, P. (2011). Communication for the Classroom Teacher. London: Pearson. 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021369327584
https://doi.org/10.1037/14669-003
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1358246100007888
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470773888
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.3.561
https://doi.org/10.1080/026999396380312
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620985415
https://doi.org/10.3917/puf.post.2001.01
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012064455-1/50005-1
https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhv086


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 3, No. 4, 2022 

39 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Subandi, S., Choirundin, C., Mahmudi, M., Nizaruddin, N., & Hermanita, H. (2018). Building 

Interactive Communication with Google Classroom. International Journal of Engineering & 

Technology, 7(2.13), 460-463. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i2.13.18141 

Thompson, M., & O’ Neill, G. C. (2001). Best Friends, Worst Enemies. Understanding the Social Lives 

of Children. New York: Ballantine Books. 

Toohey, P. (2014). Jealousy. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. 

 

 

 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i2.13.18141

