研究表明，赋予学生对部分教学内容的控制权，可以让他们更好地应对学生面临的认知挑战。他们进一步指出，学习者控制的参与者在转移测试中的表现要比不受控制的参与者表现得好。Van Gog(2005)假设，随着时间的推移，随着技能水平的提高，当学习者逐步获得对其教学的更多控制时，在培训情境中，随着学习者评估和纠正未来问题的能力的提高，改进的表现将会显现出来。相比之下，Eom和Reiser(2000)发现，获得控制指令的初中生的表现要比不被允许控制指令的学生差得多。一些研究人员(Farrell和Moore, 2000, Swaak和de Jong, 2001)也报告了同样的结果，他们指出，让学生们控制他们的教学，是在微不足道或微不足道的进步中得出的结论。这可能是一个糟糕的构造定义的情况，其中一个构造可能被错误地标记或定义在一个错误的级别上，要么太笼统，要么太具体。在这种情况下，确定给学生的控制类型可能是一个关键因素。
research study suggested that giving the students control over portions of their instruction allow them to better negotiate the cognitive challenges placed on them as students. They further noted that learner-control participants performed better on a test of transfer than the participants who received no control. Van Gog (2005) hypothesized that over time, improved performance would be visible during training situations along with the capability of the learner to assess and rectify future problematic situations when learners are progressively awarded with more control over their instruction as their skill level intensified. In contrast, Eom and Reiser (2000) revealed that junior high students who were given the opportunity to control their instruction displayed considerably worse performance than those who were not allowed to control their instruction. The same results were reported by several researchers (Farrell and Moore, 2000 and Swaak and de Jong, 2001) who stated that providing students control over their instruction concludes in trivial or insignificant advancement. It may be a case of poor construct definition where a construct may have been mislabeled or defined at a wrong level either too general or too specific. In this case, it is possible that establishing the types of control given to the students will be a crucial factor.