2026 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

This Work in Progress presents a scoping review that examines how students with varying levels of pre-college STEM exposure experience cognitive load during their first year in undergraduate engineering programs. Efforts to expand science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) degree attainment have accelerated in recent decades in response to increasing workforce demands. Incorporating engineering into K-12 curricula has been shown to improve student achievement, design ability, technological literacy, and awareness of engineering careers. Consequently, numerous programs and initiatives target K-12 students, including summer camps, advanced courses, and robotics clubs. These efforts aim to boost STEM interest, enrollment, and persistence. Participation in pre-college STEM programs has also been linked to increased self-efficacy and preparedness during the first year of college.
While these programs are beneficial, not all students enter college with early STEM exposure, and many discover engineering only later. Consequently, first-year engineering students begin their undergraduate education with highly variable levels of prior STEM engagement, often disadvantaging those who did not participate in early STEM experiences. This variability presents a key equity challenge for instructors designing first-year curricula.
A critical but underexplored lens for considering equity in engineering is cognitive load. Cognitive Load Theory posits that working memory has limited capacity and that excessive demand can hinder learning. Importantly, intrinsic cognitive load depends on both the complexity of material and the learner’s prior knowledge. Elevated cognitive load has been associated with poorer performance on engineering tasks, particularly when students lack sufficient prior knowledge or instructional support. Thus, students with less STEM experience may be disadvantaged if curricula assume prior exposure. Inclusive teaching requires designing learning environments that scaffold prior knowledge and avoid unintentionally privileging students with early STEM experience.
The research questions guiding this scoping literature review are:
1) How is the relationship between early STEM exposure and cognitive load in undergraduate engineering represented in the existing literature?
2) What gaps exist in the literature regarding how cognitive load is experienced by students in undergraduate engineering programs with early versus late STEM exposure?
This work draws upon the methods outlined by Arksey and O'Malley, describing the current state of research and identifying gaps for future work. A scoping literature review is distinct from a systematic review in that it does not focus on exhaustive inclusion/exclusion criteria or formal quality assessment. The review process involves five stages: (1) identifying research questions, (2) developing a search strategy, (3) selecting studies, (4) charting relevant data, and (5) summarizing findings. Searches will be conducted in major databases. Example search strings include: (“cognitive load” OR “cognitive load theory”) AND (“engineering education” OR “engineering”) AND (“prior knowledge” OR “STEM exposure” OR “pre-college STEM” OR “K–12 STEM”). Additional hand-searching will include sources from Google Scholar and repositories such as the American Society for Engineering Education’s PEER database.
A preliminary review reveals that while pre-college STEM exposure and cognitive load have each been extensively studied, they have largely been examined in isolation, and no previous work directly investigates the connection between the two. These findings highlight a critical need for future research examining how differential STEM exposure shapes students’ cognitive load in early engineering education. They also underscore the importance of designing engineering courses that are inclusive of students with varying STEM backgrounds. Such insights could inform curricula and learning environments that reduce cognitive inequities and support academic success. Future studies should adopt multiple approaches - including physiological measures, self-report instruments, and reflective interviews - to triangulate students’ experiences and guide equitable instructional strategies.