Studies in mathematics education often point to the necessity for students to engage in more cognitively demanding activities than just solving tasks by applying given solution methods. Previous studies have shown that students that engage in creative mathematically founded reasoning to construct a solution method, perform significantly better in follow up tests than students that are given a solution method and engage in algorithmic reasoning. However, teachers and textbooks, at least occasionally, provide explanations together with an algorithmic method, and this could possibly be more efficient than creative reasoning. In this study, three matched groups practiced with either creative, algorithmic, or explained algorithmic tasks. The main finding was that students that practiced with creative tasks did, outperform the students that practiced with explained algorithmic tasks in a post-test, despite a much lower practice score. The two groups that got a solution method presented, performed similarly in both practice and post-test, even though one group got an explanation to the given solution method. Additionally, there were some differences between the groups in which variables predicted the post-test score.