Abstract
Active learning (AL) has gained traction in political science education, often touted as an evidence-based alternative to traditional lecture methods. Despite its widespread adoption and the establishment of numerous AL initiatives across the US, the empirical evidence supporting AL’s effectiveness in political science remains limited. While over 300 articles on AL have been published in political science journals since 2010, the majority of robust evidence comes from STEM fields. This paper aims to critically evaluate the existing evidence for AL effectiveness in political science. We outline a meta-analysis of ALPS, using a robust design and checks on internal validity of the studies under review. We also propose unpacking ALPS practices, recognizing that specific AL techniques, such as role-play and simulation, may have varying impacts. Ultimately, we call for higher-quality studies and a shift from questioning whether AL works to exploring which AL practices are most effective.