2025 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

In Georgia's public school system, many students attending Title I schools—institutions where the majority of the student population lives under the poverty line—face inadequate funding for educational programs. Despite the known consequences and efforts the state has made to address this inequity, the problem is still pervasive in Georgia. Many students in these schools are often deprived of critical resources necessary for academic development, limiting their ability to demonstrate their full potential. At the same time, there are students from these schools that are pursuing undergraduate engineering degrees.

This study seeks to examine how students within Title I public schools conceptualize engineering. Specifically, this study seeks to answer two questions:

How do first-year undergraduate students from Title I high schools think about engineering?
Why do students from Title I high schools choose engineering as a major?

We will use Q methodology to answer this question. Q methodology is a mixed methods approach uniquely suited for capturing and analyzing subjective viewpoints, to explore key stakeholders’ perspectives on their academic experiences. Guided by Eccle’s Expectancy Value’s Theory and Subjective Task Values, we will first develop a comprehensive set of statements that capsulate students’ perceptions of engineering and the possible factors that may have impacted this thinking (i.e., our Q set). For example, we will ask questions to determine if they have wanted to pursue an engineering career but lacked specific resources—such as engineering clubs, specialized classes, college preparation support, engineering career exposure opportunities, etc. — to do so. We will then recruit 30 first-year engineering students from Title I high schools. These students will be asked to rank these statements from -5 to 5 (-5 being not impacted and 5 impacting them).

The Q methodology results will be used to guide and support these students in developing engineering-oriented thinking and fostering engagement within the field. This research can then propose educational reforms to prove that lower-income students are equally capable of being creative and innovative engineers. With this data, students can be given opportunities to learn about new fields and their development in critical thinking skills. In the future, we can compare the problem-solving skills of low-income students to prove how they are interested, capable, and willing to learn just like the students who have resources. This research has the potential to contribute to societal advancement by increasing access to engineering and other STEM related careers for underserved high schools, giving the world access to even more brilliant minds.