Activity 01
Structured Academic Controversy: Charismatic Megafauna vs. Keystone Species
Students take positions arguing for or against prioritizing charismatic megafauna over less visible but ecologically critical species. Each pair argues both sides before reaching a consensus position supported by biological evidence. This builds the skill of constructing evidence-based arguments from multiple perspectives.
Justify the economic and ethical arguments for preserving biodiversity.
Facilitation TipDuring the Structured Academic Controversy, assign students roles as advocates for either charismatic megafauna or keystone species to ensure balanced debate.
What to look forPose the following to students: 'Imagine you have limited funding for conservation. Would you allocate more resources to protecting the California Condor, a critically endangered bird, or to restoring a wetland that supports hundreds of insect and amphibian species? Justify your decision using both economic and ethical arguments.'