Creativity is one of those terms that often comes up in conversations about education, but it is not always clear what is meant by it.

It conjures up images of and fascination with “original” products or processes. We think of the Great Artists we know and it seems sensible that education has a part to play in the development of it.

However, this poses a big challenge. If we see creativity as something unique, I suppose not many of us are very creative.

Perhaps the distinction used by the American Psychological Association and other researchers might be useful here.

On the one hand we can distinguish “big-C creativity” - this is when a person solves a problem or creates an object that has a major impact on how other people think, feel and live their lives. These are the things we give Pulitzer and Nobel Prizes for.

On the other hand we can talk about “little-c creativity”, which includes everyday problem-solving and the ability to adapt to change. Little-c creativity is found in nearly all people. But it affects few people.

This helps it become more manageable, at least.

A second challenge, of course, would then be how we develop “creative thinking”. Is it even possible?

That does not seem very straightforward. According to the older componential theory of creativity developed by psychologist Teresa Amabile of Harvard University, multiple components come into play such as domain-relevant skills, quality processes, intelligence and intrinsic task motivation. But not all of them are outside our sphere of influence; Amabile points out creativity can be promoted through environmental factors such as freedom, support and positive challenges.

The final chapter of the 2010 Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, edited by James C Kaufman and Robert J Sternberg, covers another important variable: constraints. A major criterion is how much constraint there is in the creative process.

Whether it’s time, knowledge or resources, all of these can both be conducive and a barrier to creative processes. More time can create more opportunities for creative ideas, but it could also remove pressure that can actually help. More knowledge can open up more avenues for creative links between concepts, but it could also create tunnel vision.

More resources could create more outlandish contraptions, but MacGyver only needed a ballpoint pen and a paperclip.

In my own work, I wrote about this in the context of mathematical tasks. Think about the game show Countdown, where there is a constrained task with six numbers and a target number to create. Within that constrained environment, candidates can arguably come up with what most people would deem more or less creative solutions.

It’s worth pondering the above when considering your own role in the creativity - and possibility of creative training - of your students.

Christian Bokhove is associate professor in mathematics education at the University of Southampton

This article originally appeared in the 21 June 2019 issue under the headline “Creativity comes in different sizes”