Today, self-regulated learning can be seen as one of the most important educational principles for academic learning (OECD, 2019). For a long time, the focus has not only been on subject-specific competencies, such as the acquisition of knowledge, but also on so-called generic competencies, such as independence, organization, personal responsibility, or the ability to work in a team. Thus, the promotion of self-regulated learning is not limited to school and teaching but is considered an essential factor for lifelong learning (e. g. Artelt et al., 2003). Self-regulated learning of students includes the autonomous planning of one's own learning process as well as its ongoing monitoring and attribution (Dignath & Veenman, 2020). The underlying assumption is that through the deliberate use of (meta-)cognitive, motivational, and emotional strategies, students can gain a deeper understanding of their own learning and make it more efficient and sustainable (e. g. Boekaerts, 2011).
However, it has been shown repeatedly that students are not sufficiently encouraged and challenged in school regarding their self-regulated learning. Especially in the upper secondary school, whose primary goal is to prepare students for university, there are deficiencies in the promotion of self-regulated learning (Dörrenbacher & Perels, 2016). A possible explanation for this is the assumption that the successful promotion of self-regulated learning requires the consideration of different school antinomies (Helsper, 2004). In the context of self-regulated learning, contradictions arise on the one hand with regard to the aspects of autonomy and individuality and on the other hand with regard to the aspects of structure and standardization. This dialectic becomes especially clear in forms of open instruction as a contrast between external and internal differentiation because the actions of the teachers as well as the independent learning of the students are co-determined by framework conditions, rules, curricula and legal requirements. In this context, questions arise, for example, regarding the guaranteed freedom, the requirements of the curricula and the possibilities of open lesson planning. The state of research shows that the framework conditions in which self-regulated learning can take place successfully should be examined more closely, because up to now the majority of studies have focused on the effectiveness of self-regulated learning and the experiences with self-regulated learning from the perspective of specific actors (e. g. Dignath & Büttner, 2008; Leutwyler & Maag Merki, 2009).

In order to contribute to this research desideratum, this paper presents a project, in which the implementation of an instructional intervention at an upper secondary school was evaluated from the perspective of students and teachers. As part of the intervention, conditions that promote self-regulated learning were created in selected classes through changes in the instructional setting. These didactic changes referred to a division into learning and examination phases, changes in the distribution of subjects and time slots for individual learning instead of lessons. Therefore, this paper addresses the following questions:

What do teachers consider to be vital conditions for successful self-regulated learning?

What do students consider to be vital conditions for successful self-regulated learning?

What strategies do students and teachers describe in dealing with areas of conflict related to self-regulated learning?

The aim of this paper is to elaborate framework conditions for successful self-regulated learning from the perspective of the students and teachers at a grammar school in Switzerland and to make them accessible for future implementations. Considering the theoretical background, we assume that students and teachers perceive the framework differently.

The data used for this paper derive from the second evaluation study of the project "Profil Hofwil" at a grammar school in the canton of Bern. In this evaluation study rating conferences were selected for data collection because they are particularly suitable for school quality evalua-tion (Keller et al., 2012). Since the aim is to obtain a differentiated picture by recording the per-spectives of students and teachers, the "combination of standardized short survey and structured group interview" (Keller et al., 2012, p. 287) is advantageous. By discussing the quantitative re-sults, which serve as a basis for conversation, valid evaluation results can be productively gener-ated together (Landwehr, 2005). Since in rating conferences the quantitative data only serve as support for the qualitative statements (Keller et al., 2012), the focus of this paper will be on the qualitative data. The nine rating conferences were transcribed and analyzed using qualitative con-tent analysis according to Kuckartz (2018) with a deductive-inductive category system. Since the empirical data base is an evaluation of a project that has already been set up at a school, the sampling was deliberate. Students of certain classes from the "Profil Hofwil" as well as all new teachers teaching in the "Profil Hofwil" since 2018 were surveyed. A total of 9 rating con-ferences were conducted with 49 students and 16 teachers. The group composition in the rating conferences was deliberately homogeneous regarding the group of actors. As instruments for data collection we used a questionnaire and instructions for conducting the group discussions. The questionnaire consisted of different dimensions relating to the planned intervention (e.g. separating learning and exam week). The group discussion guide was used to structure the group discussion and only provided a list of open-ended questions that could be used with flexibility during the interview (Vogl, 2014).

Regarding the research questions, it can be stated that for the successful implementation of self-regulated learning in everyday school life and the well-being of all participants, the recognition of antinomies and the examination of the needs of students and teachers are central. There are often incongruent statements in terms of necessary conditions between students and teachers. For ex-ample, students would prefer to do individual learning at home, while teachers - based on the legal requirements - insist that it must take place at school. The results of the study further show that the framework conditions restrict self-regulated learn-ing of students. Students struggle in the self-regulation of their learning because they often dis-tract each other and can hardly concentrate in small rooms with many other people. Simultane-ously the time structure of 45-minute lessons also hinders their learning process. Furthermore, students would like to have more freedom in choosing their place to learn, as this would allow them to create a learning environment more suitable. For their part, teachers perceive the tension between granting autonomy and the demands of the school and try to find individual and subject-related solutions. If the data are viewed in the context of the continuum between self-regulation and external regulation, it becomes apparent that the students' desire for autonomy is strongly pronounced and that teachers feel restricted in their didactic possibilities by internal school regu-lations and the curriculum. To meet the needs of all actors and to enable satisfactory self-regulated learning, the demands of both sides must be reconciled, and compromises have to be found. For research and practice, this kind of identification of basic conditions for successful self-regulated learning is essential and desirable for future implementations.

Artelt, C., Baumert, J., Julius-McElvany, N., & Peschar, J. (2003). Learners for life: Student ap-proaches to learning. Results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD. Boekaerts, M. (2011). Emotions, emotion regulation, and self-regulation of learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Per-formance (pp. 408–425). New York: Routledge. Dignath, C., & Büttner, G. (2008). Components of fostering self-regulated learning among stu-dents. A meta-analysis on intervention studies at primary and secondary school level. Met-acognition and Learning, 3(3), 231–264. Dignath, C., & Veenman, M. V. (2020). The Role of Direct Strategy Instruction and Indirect Ac-tivation of Self-Regulated Learning—Evidence from Classroom Observation Stud-ies. Educational Psychology Review, 1-45. Dörrenbacher, L., & Perels, F. (2016). Self-regulated learning profiles in college students: Their rela-tionship to achievement, personality, and the effectiveness of an intervention to foster self-reg-ulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 229–241. Helsper, W. (2004). Pädagogisches Handeln in den Antinomien der Moderne [Pedagogical action in the antinomies of modernity]. In H.-H. Krüger, & W. Helsper (Hrsg.), Einführung in Grundbegriffe und Grundfragen der Erziehungswissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Springer Fach-medien. Keller, H., Heinemann, E., & Kruse, M. (2012). Die Ratingkonferenz. Eine Kombination von Kurzfra-gebogen und Gruppeninterview [The Rating Conference. A combination of short questionnaire and group interview]. Zeitschrift für Evaluation, 11(2), 287–298. Kuckartz, U. (2018). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung (4. Aufl.) [Qualitative content analysis. Methods, practice, computer support]. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa. Landwehr, N. (2005). Lehrevaluation als Anstoss zur Unterrichtsentwicklung [Teaching evalua-tion as an impetus for teaching development]. Beiträge zur Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbil-dung, 23(3), 321–333. Leutwyler, B., & Maag Merki, K. (2009). School effects on students’ self-regulated learning. A multi-variate analysis of the relationship between individual perceptions of school pro-cesses and cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational dimensions of self-regulated learn-ing. Journal for Educational Research Online, 1(1), 197–223. OECD (2019). OECD Skills Outlook 2019: Thriving in a Digital World. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/df80bc12-en. Vogl, S. (2014). Gruppendiskussion [Group discussion]. In N. Baur & J. Blasius (Hrsg.), Hand-buch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung (S. 581–586). Wiesbaden: Springer Fach-medien.