Summary: Algebra students studied either static-table, static-graphics, or interactive-graphics instructional worked examples that alternated with algebra cognitive tutor practice problems. A control group did not study worked examples but solved both the instructional and practice problems on the cognitive tutor (CT). Students in the control group requested fewer hints and made fewer errors on the CT practice problems but required more learning time on the instructional examples. There was no difference among the four groups in constructing equations on a paper-and-pencil posttest or on a delayed test that included training and transfer problems. However, students who studied worked examples with a table were best at identifying the meaning of the equation components. The concept of transfer-appropriate processing (the overlap between instructional task and assessment task) aided our interpretation of the findings. Although the CT had a short-term effect on reducing errors and hint requests on CT practice problems, the worked examples were as effective on delayed paper-and-pencil tests. The subsequent construction of a new module for the Animation Tutor [{\it S. K. Reed} and {\it B. Hoffman}, Animation Tutor: mixtures. Instructional software. San Diego: San Diego State University (2011)] used both the interactive-graphics and static-table worked examples to take advantage of the complementary strengths of different representations [{\it S. Ainsworth}, Learn. Instr. 16, No. 3, 183‒198 (2006; ME 2006e.02768)].