Retrieval practice of information through testing has been shown to improve learning. So has studying examples. In this paper, we address inconsistencies in the literature concerning which of these two approaches is best. We test the hypothesis that learning depends on what is being learned; whereas practice emphasizes memorization, studying examples allows for selectivity of encoding, resulting in different information being learned. Accordingly, we predicted that practice will improve learning in situations that emphasize memorization (such as learning facts or simple associations), whereas studying examples will improve learning in situations where there are multiple pieces of information available and selectivity is necessary (such as when learning skills or procedures). We report evidence from a laboratory study using naturalistic materials showing results consistent with these predictions.