The article by John Banks [attached] outlines innovative programs worldwide that integrate the seemingly opposed goals of agriculture and conservation biology to produce mutually beneficial outcomes. This ecological conflict and subsequent movement towards integration provides an opportunity for students to actively learn science by structuring arguments for both sides of an issue, then synthesizing and integrating the best evidence and reasoning into a position statement. The intellectual skill of challenging the thinking of others by developing arguments is highly desirable in undergraduates (Conley 2003). By practicing critical analysis of arguments, students can move toward higher levels of reasoning (Toulmin 1958). A common concern of instructors is “giving up” lecture time to implement student-centered activities during class. In part, this is based on the poorly supported assumption that students learn best through lecture (Posner et al. 1982; Bransford et al. 1999). However, research shows that students construct understanding better by interacting and processing information in small groups (Johnson et al. 1996; Springer et al. 1999). Nevertheless, the challenges of implementing small group experiences in large classes are not trivial, nor is ensuring student accountability for participation. Here we use a structured controversy based on Banks’ paper to help students understand a complex ecological problem, and provide instructors with multiple forms of assessment to determine if the controversy “works” (ie helps students achieve the goals).