We can find in the current days innumerable concepts on the long-distance Education, some authors bring I obtain definitions in its particular approach, thus examining under diverse aspects and the light of some theories, thus contributing for a theoretical understanding regarding this half revolutionary of learning. Being thus we cite the definition of one of the most respected theoreticians of the subject, Lourenzo Garci’a Aretio: … a technological system of bidirectional communication, that can be massiva and that it substitutes the personal interaction, in the classroom, of professor and pupil, as half preferential of education, for the systematic action joint of diverse didactic resources and for the support of an organization and guardianship that propitiate the independent and flexible learning of the pupils (ARETIO, apud COMASSETTO, 2001, p.35) We choose the definition above therefore, it this characterizing the long-distance Education (EAD) as ‘ ‘ a technological system of comunicao’ ‘ , sending to us an idea of modernity and scientific advance to it, what to a large extent it corresponds the reality, however, it is convenient to cite independently that of the used technology, the process teach-learning, actual or not, possesss its main approach in the interaction between people, educator and educating. The long-distance Education differs from the actual education, for its more obvious aspect: in the distance, physical separation between pupil and professor, and the used medias. However, it is convenient to say that the differences not if it summarizes in its obvious aspect as it affirms Peters: … many professors believe and are vain of whom the only difference is only ‘ ‘ distncia’ ‘ the importance of the media technique is necessary to transpose the abyss between who teaches and who learns and that the remaining portion of the learning and education process remains identical. Angel Martinez is likely to agree. However this opinion is missed, shows a maken a mistake boarding to the long-distance education and it discloses inadequate an attitude pedagogical (PETERS, 2003, p.69).