Introduction²

Brazil is an unequal, developing country, (and) with a large territorial extension, and presents difficulties and weaknesses in its educational process. Distance Education (DE) can be considered an important education modality for the creation of opportunities for a large number of people. It has the power to reduce distances and (the) inequalities, filling the formational gaps of Brazilian citizens (^{Mauro, Freitas, Cintrão, & Gallo, 2017}).

DE is a growing (and) changing phenomenon in Brazil. The development of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) has enabled new levels of diffusion of this type of education. Considering the year 2018 there was an increase of 20% in the overall number of enrollments in the DE modality and 79% of regulated EaD courses that are entirely at a distance, with a predominance for educational institutions in the Southeast (^{Brazilian Association of Distance Education [Abed], 2018}).

In 2018, for the first time, the total number of vacancies offered for graduation was higher in EaD than in face-to-face modality. Considering the last five years, the growth of vacancies in DE is 135%. The presence of EaD in undergraduate courses tends to increase even more, since the Brazilian government has sanctioned Ordinance 2.117/2019, which allows educational institutions to make available up to 40% of their course load in EaD, consolidating the hybrid education modality (^{Brazil, 2018}).

Moreover, DE courses are considered financially important for educational institutions: for 60% of the institutions, DE represented more than 51% of profits in 2014 - which is relevant when compared to the financial return of face-to-face courses. Thus, DE is a new space for expansion and profit-making by Brazilian educational institutions (^{Mancebo, Vale, & Martins, 2015}; ^{Abed, 2018}).

Despite the significant growth and the perception that DE can help overcome the educational gap in Brazil, this education modality still struggles with prejudice and resistance (^{Mancebo et al., 2015}). The labor market, for example, presents strong prejudice against DE (^{Garcia, Silva, & Riedo, 2015}). However, ^{Santos and Menegassi (2018}) state that people's prejudgment about DE has been reduced over time, since institutions have been proving that the grades of DE students are equal or even higher than those of face-to-face students. ^{Fioravanzo, Vieira, and Claro (2016}) state that the prejudice phase has passed, with barriers already overcome and with greater acceptance by the parties involved.

Considering the above contextualization, the following question guided this research: How can EaD be widely disseminated to meet the several classes of society? To answer it, the general objective was to propose guidelines for the dissemination of DE in Brazil, based on the identification and analysis of prejudice against DE and its causes. It was identified only two articles that address the theme prejudice against DE, directly - ^{Corrêa and Santos (2009}) and ^{Almeida Filho (2015}), so that this article seeks to contribute to a better understanding of this phenomenon within the Brazilian reality.

The present article can be characterized as a qualitative, exploratory and field research: a) qualitative because it considers the content analysis of the response of 100 respondents, obtained through an online questionnaire (^{Vergara, 2013}; ^{Marchisotti, Joia, & Carvalho, 2019}) where it sought to identify whether or not there is prejudice against DE and understand what their motivators are. To do so it was used content analysis that "[...] constitutes a research methodology used to describe and interpret the content of all classes of documents and texts." (^{Moraes, 1999}, p. 2); b) exploratory, as to its purposes, because it aims to identify the perception of Brazilians regarding the researched theme (Vergara, 2013), and c) a field research, since it seeks to understand a certain social fact in its natural context (^{Kinchescki, Alves, & Fernandes, 2015}).

The links with the research questions were sent using the technique of accessibility or convenience, without the use of statistical means (^{Vergara, 2013}). A first filter applied to all responses received, was to select those that had the question 'Is there prejudice with respect to DE? This ensures, in this way, the analysis of only those responses whose respondents understand that there is, in fact, prejudice against this type of education. Next, the content of the answers to the question 'What are the reasons for prejudice against DE?' were analyzed, in order to identify categories that represent the reasons expressed by respondents for prejudice against DE.

To this end, the content analysis was performed according to the procedures and steps described by ^{Moraes (1999}): 1) Preparation of the information - tabulation of all responses in an Excel spreadsheet; 2) Transformation of the content into units (Unitarization), which in the case of this research were the sentences - all responses from each of the respondents were analyzed sentence by sentence; 3) Classification of the units into categories (Categorization) - from the analysis of the sentences in the previous step, categories were created to express the opinions of the respondents on the theme; 4) Description - explanation of each of the categories, based on the previous analyses; and 5) Interpretation - analysis of the broad meaning of the answers, by examining the categories created and their descriptions. Finally, each of the categories created was compared with the articles from a bibliographic research, in order to identify if in fact the arguments put forward by the respondents, concerning their position on the existence of prejudice, are corroborated by theory or are dubious facts, without theoretical support. This theoretical reference was obtained following the procedures proposed by ^{Chueke and Amatucci (2015}), using the Boolean search: 'Distance Education' or 'Distance Education' or 'Distance Teaching' or 'Distance Learning' or 'Distance Learning' or 'Distance Learning'. After applying filters - articles published in the last 5 years, peer-reviewed journals in Portuguese language - it was possible to find 608 articles. From this initial base we sought to identify at least 2 articles, by reading the abstracts, that were associated with each of the categories previously created in the content analysis, so that it is possible to corroborate (or not) what was said by the interviewees during the analysis of the results.

Within the growth of DE, it is natural that there are divergent positions on the subject. According to ^{Oliveira (2013}) there are positions contrary to DE, by the defenders of face-to-face education, who consider DE as an education modality without quality. According to ^{Patto (2013}), distance education demonstrates the bankruptcy of education, being one of the threats to the integrity of public schools. The offer of DE courses would be a movement to promote emergency public policies and, in this sense, it can be understood as an education with a high degree of precariousness. It is claimed that it is an attempt to commercialize higher education and that the DE movement would not be in fact concerned with student learning (^{Arruda & Arruda, 2015}). On the other hand, there are supporters of DE who understand it as a new form of education and an important pedagogical practice, considering face-to-face education as outdated and antiquated (Oliveira, 2013).

There is also a third tendency, currently identified as the one with the best results, which believes that the mix of face-to-face education with DE is the most appropriate, and this method of education is called hybrid (^{Renosto & Cardoso, 2015}). There are even works based on case studies that claim that the use of DE, as a complement to face-to-face teaching in undergraduate courses, makes professional training more effective (^{Mezzari, 2011}). ^{Moran and Valente (2015}) corroborate this understanding by stating that the system part face-to-face, part distance, presents itself as the most promising, ensuring meaningful learning. For ^{Rocha and Herrmann (2019}), the hybrid modality is already a reality, bringing together daily experiences and technology.

One study compared the performance of a face-to-face teaching class and another in EaD modality and the results were favorable to the second group. The performance in tests and class interaction was similar for both classes, and in most of the items evaluated, the DE students had a better performance. It was found that the success of the teaching-learning process using DE is associated with the exploration and appropriate use of virtual resources and tools, as well as the incentive for participation and the search for improvement of techniques and methods used (^{Nascimento, Czykiel, & Figueiró, 2013}).

For any education modality, there are advantages and disadvantages. However, it is frequent the negative assessment of DE, without a deeper knowledge about this education modality; without concrete, real, academic or practical basis to justify it. As addressed by ^{Abbad (2014}), there is a difficulty in demonstrating the effectiveness of DE compared to face-to-face education, as well as other challenges to be overcome by DE and that are confronted with the Brazilian reality, such as the need to promote the digital inclusion of the population; greater familiarization of the actors involved with the Internet and associated technological tools; improvement of DE-based courses, with attention to teaching-learning strategies that promote greater interaction and better use of ICT technologies; better evaluation systems that measure the Distance Education system; and better understanding of the reasons for the high dropout rate and development of actions to mitigate it.

Thus, it should be emphasized the need for improvements in DE. According to research by ^{Silva and Moita (2019}), the main difficulties reported by students in DE modality are: 1) inadequate infrastructure for the modality; 2) inadequate teaching resources and 3) lack of internet access. Although the insertion of video classes is well accepted by the new generation, as well as virtual simulators, the care with the teaching material should be doubled, since the teaching-learning processes are changing all the time and new technological resources are emerging. These processes can be more effective with the use of the internet and new technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Computing, requiring adjustments in the pedagogical models of educational institutions (^{Barros & Guerreiro, 2019}).

There is doubt whether the prejudice against DE is something new or a condition experienced since the beginning of the use of this method of education. The initial experiences of the dissemination of DE by the Brazilian Open University (UAB), from 2006, were made in a botched manner, without the care and academic debates necessary to ensure, at the time, criteria and standards for measuring the quality of this education modality, which brought some discredit to DE (^{Mancebo et al., 2015}).

^{Almeida Filho (2015}), corroborates this understanding, by stating that the prejudice against DE is characterized by past experiences of failures in the use of this methodology in Brazilian history. The disqualifications regarding DE are unfounded, and are associated with cultural variables, lack of knowledge and difficulties of adaptation with respect to the technological resources used. For ^{Almeida (2013}), the origin of prejudice against DE comes from the belief that students do not learn, effectively, that is, DE does not provide the construction of knowledge. In this context, DE is considered of low quality if compared to the face-to-face model, besides presenting a lower level of difficulty, being easier in terms of content.

When it comes to higher education, the professors themselves and the academic institutions themselves can be a source of prejudice against DE (^{Alencar, Silva, Lima, Firmo, & Queiroz, 2015}), either because of lack of knowledge, or because of corporatism or the need to maintain the status quo. The view, by the academia itself, that DE education is an instrument for the propagation of low-quality education, and that it aims to promote the expansion of higher education at any price, is relatively common. DE is, in this context, understood as a tool used to mask deficiencies of public policies for the expansion of education (^{Arruda & Arruda, 2015}).

Much of the prejudice against this modality of education is based on the supposed lack of quality of the courses. However, according to ^{Moran and Valente (2015}), a quality DE course challenges classroom courses in terms of: 1) the flexibility, both of time and schedules and procedures; and 2) the change of focus on learning, tutoring, and the student, to the detriment of teaching. However, one question is worth asking: How to characterize whether a given course has quality or not? According to ^{Bertolin and Marcon (2015}), for the case of higher education courses, the quality of courses and higher education institutions are measured by rankings, which are based on exams such as Enade or, in the past, Provão. However, the authors emphasize that this form of quality assessment, per se, is not a reliable instrument and what really differentiates the performance of students is their cultural knowledge - social, family, economic and cultural context.

A research on prejudice against DE goes beyond the analysis of the teaching-learning relationship, because it also involves the analysis of external factors. According to ^{Alencar et al. (2015}) a better dissemination of DE-based courses is necessary, both from the point of view of marketing itself, and about the education modality itself, in addition to the formal aspects of DE, such as the validity of these courses under Brazilian law, as well as the market acceptance of graduates in DE-based courses.

However, it is worth noting that even considering the existence of prejudice against DE, it can be seen that in practice, and considering the Brazilian context - large territory, need for training of the population for insertion in the labor market and deficiency of physical infrastructure - it has been decreasing. Universities have been seeking to discuss, criticize, analyze, qualify and implement courses in DE, in addition to making them available as a modality of education effectively used to meet those who cannot afford to take face-to-face courses (^{Costa & Cochi, 2013}). Still, there are obstacles to the existence of a digital culture and a full understanding of new technologies used in DE, by teachers who have difficulties in breaking with the paradigms of traditional classroom teaching (^{França, Costa, & Santos, 2019}).

In this survey, the profile of the respondents has the following characteristics: 1) 55.6% are male; 2) 91% are between 25 and 55 years old; 3) 91% live in the southeast region; 4) 36% are predominantly engineers; 5) 81% have a graduate degree; 6) 63% had already taken a distance learning course. From the total of 100 responses considered, 78% stated that there is prejudice against EaD. After the content analysis of the answers of these respondents, it was possible to build the list of categories, describe and exemplify them with sentences from the respondents.

Final considerations

In general, it is identified that there is prejudice against DE, both among students and among teachers. However, over time, this prejudice has been decreasing, which can be seen by the growth in the adoption of DE, either in isolation, or mixed with the face-to-face modality. It is worth mentioning that some considerations against DE are factual and cannot be considered as prejudice, but as intrinsic characteristics of this education modality or points of attention to be attacked, in searching for improvement. The lack of knowledge about DE is a critical and impactful point in this sense.

After categorizing the data collected, it was identified that some opinions of the interviewees do not have a theoretical basis that justifies their position, therefore they were considered in this research as prejudice: 1) Low quality of teaching, where the teaching-learning process is less effective than face-to-face teaching, with low performance and depth; 2) There is fraud, lack of control or backing of the institutions that promote this type of education, causing a distrust regarding DE and a lack of credibility in educational institutions; 3) Lack of knowledge about DE - methodologies used and the successful results achieved -; and 4) The lack of habit and customs of the actors involved with the new way of learning with DE generate a negative perception about this type of education and, consequently, prejudice.

Despite not being characterized as prejudiced attitudes, there are some aspects related to DE that need to be better worked out so that this type of education is better recognized. From these findings it was possible to define guidelines for a possible dissemination of DE in Brazil: 1) Improve the quality of content, without adaptations from classroom education. 2) To publish comparative results between DE students and classroom students, proving that the performance of the former is equal or superior to that of the latter; 3) To publish cases of academic or professional success, of students who have graduated in DE; 4) To inform about the teaching-learning process, how it differs from that used in classroom education, including forms of assessment; details of tools, methodologies and techniques to be used; 5) To seek awareness that DE courses are equally or more difficult than face-to-face courses, requiring discipline, commitment and self-learning. 6) To increase the interaction between former students with current and potential students, through recorded videos and lectures; 7) To offer short DE courses, so that current and potential students become more familiar with this education modality; 8) Disseminate the possibility of using EaD for all courses, eliminating potential cognitive barriers and lack of knowledge about this education modality; 9) Clarify that there are courses taught 100% online, but there are also those that will require a face-to-face part (hybrids); 10) Disclose the DE market and how it has been used by large national and international educational institutions. To highlight the institution's major commitment to the teaching-learning process, and not just to financial gain. Demonstrate effectively, with data and arguments, the institution's concern in developing courses that ensure quality learning; finally, 11) Practice an active management of teachers, involving and stimulating them in the development of the content, the lesson plan and all the activities associated with DE courses, in order to mitigate corporatism on the part of teachers, who prefer to maintain the status quo associated with classroom teaching. To offer training and improvement courses for teachers, as well as remuneration compatible with face-to-face teaching, so that there is no boycott of DE.

The following can be cited as managerial and academic contributions of this work: 1) Identified the reasons for the existence of prejudice against DE, managers of educational institutions that offer DE courses can take measures so that such prejudice is reduced as much as possible; 2) The proposition of guidelines for the dissemination of DE in Brazil enables institutions to pay attention to points of greater impact to the results of DE courses; and 3) Since academic studies on prejudice against DE are rare in Brazil, this article contributes with important information, based on a field research, which highlights a subject that deserves to be further discussed academically.

Future studies could create scales to measure the degree, the level of prejudice against DE, both by students, teachers and institutions, in order to be able to plan actions for the gradual reduction of these prejudices. It is also suggested that ways to reduce prejudice against DE should be researched, given its importance to society. Effective actions need to be thought out and implemented so that DE can be accepted as another form of education and not as a second-rate course.

One of the limitations of this work, which is present in all qualitative research, is the possible interference of the authors in data analysis and subsequent categorization, which can bias the results. This limitation is mitigated by the researchers' experience in using content analysis.