The Learning study and the Educational Action Research approaches to educational research are compared, not from a third, neutral point of view, but from the perspective of the former. Hence, the comparison is carried out in terms of how the main point of departure of the Learning study (LS), the question of 'What is to be learned?', is addressed in the two approaches. Both represent critical stances to Educational objectives, the frequently taken-for-granted answer to the question. Educational objectives communicate, however, what the students are expected to become able to do, but not what they need to learn in order to get there. Hence, what is to be learned cannot be stated in advance, prior to the teacher learning what her students need to learn. The two approaches to educational research agree on the principle that what is to be learned has to be found in the interaction between students and teachers; however, there is an important difference between the two concerning the very point of departure. Educational objectives are too wide and imprecise according to LS, the teachers have to find the critical aspects (necessary to appropriate, but not appropriated as yet by the students) of the object of learning. According to Action research, as formulated by Lawrence Stenhouse, educational objectives are too narrow, too limited and limiting. We shall start looking for what is to be learned amongst inherent aspects of the content itself.