Abstract: The purpose of this study was to provide a comprehensive review of the literature surrounding block scheduling to better understand what the last twenty years of research reveals about the impact of block scheduling on science teaching and learning. Forty-five selected articles were examined for arguments or reasoning as supporting block scheduling, opposing block scheduling, or stating that block scheduling did not make a difference in the argument. Five categories emerged: 1) organizational issues, 2) curricular issues, 3) instructional issues, 4) learning outcomes, and 5) disciplinary issues. The arguments/reasons were further analyzed into 23 sub categories, with the number of studies for each argument recorded. Data from 31 studies supported, data from 30 studies opposed, and data from 16 studies stated that block scheduling did not make a difference for that argument. Issues associated with block scheduling included school funding, presumed science benefits, teacher retention and student learning outcomes.