Wright, Black, Park, & Shea (2001) conducted a series of experiments that demonstrated a hierarchy exists with respect to the programming of relative and overall time prior to initiation of a sequential movement. Specifically, a movement sequence’s relative timing needs to be determined prior to the overall duration being specified. The present experiments extended this prior work by examining whether the nature of the practice schedule determines the emergence of a hierarchical specification of the time requirements of a movement sequence. In Experiment 1, participants practiced sequential movement tasks that had the same relative time requirement but different overall times under conditions of either high (random practice) or low (blocked practice) contextual interference (CI). Experiment 2 involved participants practicing tasks with different relative features but the same overall durations under different levels of CI. In both experiments, participants who practiced under conditions of low CI demonstrated better acquisition performance on relative timing error (RTE) and overall duration error (E) than participants who practiced under conditions of high CI. However, during the delayed retention test, RTE and E were smaller for the group who practiced under conditions of high CI. In addition, the results of both experiments revealed similar programming and reprogramming cost profiles as the original work of Wright et al. (2001). That is, the costs associated with partial preprogramming and changing an already programmed sequence were greater than when the movement could be fully planned in advance. Of greater interest however was the finding from Experiment 2 that random rather than blocked practice resulted more efficient programming and reprogramming. These data are congruent with recent suggestions of Wright and colleagues that the benefit of random practice is, at least in part, due to improvement in the motor programming component of movement preparation (Wright & Immink, 2001; Wright, Black, Immink, Brueckner, & Magnuson, in press).Keyword(s): research