Pugh *defines* the construct of TE as follows: “Transformative experiences occur when students actively use curricular concepts in everyday life to see and experience the world in a new, meaningful way” and claims to demonstrate that “it has practical value as a measurable construct that uniquely focuses on the consequences of learning on everyday experience”.

His argument is then on “the development of instruction to foster transformative experiences”. We instructors ought to be motivated to apply the construct in professional contexts, improve our methods … and see how our students apply their learning everywhere, unprompted.

Seems that Pughs definition of the TE construct is a tad restrictive, contrary to how the words are used in everyday language. The uninitiated may assume that TE is a similar concept to threshold knowledge :-)

Yes, I agree! I didn’t do a great job expressing what I meant. From what I understand, the point is not that the transformative experience itself is intrinsically motivated, but that after such an experience, people feel motivated to apply the new skills in a context where it isn’t required that they do so.

I am thinking about the “voluntarily, out of intrinsic motivation” requirement. If I already have the intrinsic motivation, then I am probably half-way there: open to new ways of seeing things, ready to cross over that threshold.

On the other hand, don’t we all recall incidents where the “transformative experience” took place in a course, or in (mor generally) an institutional setting?

I would argue that the liberty offered in certain environments (as in this place) is very conducive to transformative experiences, but this does not preclude them from happening in other settings.