Existing approaches in the literature on cognitive control in conflict tasks almost exclusively target the outcome of control (by comparing mean congruency effects) and not the processes that shape control. These approaches are limited in addressing a current theoretical issue--what contribution does learning make to adjustments in cognitive control? In the present study, we evaluated an alternative approach by reanalyzing existing data sets using generalized linear mixed models that enabled us to examine trial-level changes in control within abbreviated lists that varied in theoretically significant ways (e.g., probability of conflict; presence vs. absence of a precue). For the first time, this allowed us to characterize (a) the trial-by-trial signature of experience-based processes that support control as a list unfolds under various conditions and (b) how explicit precues conveying the expected probability of conflict within a list influence control learning. This approach uncovered novel theoretical insights: First, slopes representing control learning varied depending on whether a cue was available or not suggesting that explicit expectations about conflict affected whether and the rate at which control learning occurred; and second, this pattern was modulated by task demands and incentives. Additionally, analyses revealed a cue-induced heightening of control in high conflict likelihood lists that mean level analyses had failed to capture. The present study showed how control is shaped by the adaptive weighting of experience and expectations on a trial-by-trial basis and demonstrated the utility of a novel method for revealing the contributions of learning to control, and modulation of learning via precues.