 Hello and welcome to this poster presentation of the results of our study where we are looking to find the threshold concepts in the three main physics courses of the science program. In this study, the physics teachers of an Anglophone College engaged in a Delphi process to come up with a list of threshold concepts for mechanics, NOAA, electricity and magnetism, NYB and waves and water physics, NYC. The results show that there is a nickel amount of threshold concepts in NYA and NYB, with a bit less of them in NYC. First of all, what are threshold concepts? Threshold concepts are special concepts that, most authors agree, have to be transformative. They transform how the students think. They usually are irreversible, meaning once the student's thinking is transformed, you cannot go back. You cannot forget once you've learned a threshold concept. They may be integrative, providing links to other topics. They might be bounded, meaning particular to a certain discipline, sometimes even informing the boundary of that discipline. And they're often troublesome, meaning counter-intuitive, difficult to learn and conflicting with previous views. Some also consider them to be reconstructive, changing the subjectivity of a person. Discursive, meaning that there is a lot of disciplinary-specific vocabulary and language related to that topic. And last but not least, liminal, meaning that the path of learning them is not straightforward. Those last three criteria, however, be ignored in this study. Not properly mastering a threshold has been linked to being stuck in liminality, meaning knowing what doesn't work, but not really knowing what does work. And knowledge, which results in the inability to make links to other concepts. Problems studying other concepts, so not being able to continue on the learning journey. Minicry as a coping mechanism, which, for example, could result in overly reliance on the surface approach. And not to forget disengagement. If students encounter treasure but are unable to pass it, they will get demotivated and might start withholding efforts as a consequence. Why did we do this study? As most of you probably are aware of, students struggle a lot with mechanics. There have been various attempts of explaining on what's going on in mechanics, thinking about misconception, talking about motivation, and also we have a lot of data used to force concept inventory that actually shows that this struggle with mechanics is real. Given the extensive literature on treasure concepts in mechanics, we wanted to see if it could be that it is a high amount of treasure concepts that could be contributing to these problems with mechanics. The methodology used was a delvy process consisting of three rounds of anonymous and asynchronous surveys. In the first survey, the participants, without being told about treasure concepts at all, for us to indicate the characteristics and the consequences of non-mastery for all the concepts taught in those three courses. Based on that data, a initial list of treasure concepts was compiled, where everything was considered treasure if it was transformative and had at least one other characteristic or consequence usually associated with treasure concepts. Then in the second round of survey, the participants were first shown a video that informed them about the treasure concept framework, and then they were asked to review the list that resulted from round one and suggest modifications, adding items or removing items, and in each case justify why. In the last round, the participants voted on all these suggestions, and we ended up with the finalists that you can see in the results. The results show that there is an equal amount of treasure concepts in NYA and NYB, and slightly less in NYC. Our results correspond more or less with what we could have found in literature. The main differences are that in mechanics, rotational kinematics was identified as a threshold, where we could find nothing about this in the literature. The reason might be that the literature is mostly about the university-level equivalence of this course, so we could have here a difference based on at what level the course is being taught. In NYB, there was not just a big surprise, except that a lot of concepts got split up in individual parts. For example, Kishof's loop rule got counted separately from circuits. In NYC, we have two interesting things happening, which is that simple harmonic motion made it to the list, which we have not found in the literature, and another one is that Galilean relativity, which is well documented in the literature and usually associated to the mechanics course, got moved from NYA to NYC, based on a comment by one of the participants that while yes, we are covering it the first time in mechanics, the actually crossing of the threshold only happens in NYC once we study special relativity. As a conclusion, we cannot say that NYA has more thresholds than the other courses, as NYB has a equal amount. More studying would be needed to look at NYB or why these thresholds, if they are at the root of the struggle with mechanics, seem to cause less trouble in NYB than they cause in NYA. Could it be the timing of their appearance with NYB being later in their program? Could it be that students who struggle most have already been filtered out by not passing the mechanics course? There is definitely more research that needs to be done. Independent of the result, studying threshold concepts is important, especially in the context of the ongoing science program revision where we have the unique chance to actually change and adapt the curriculum. But even if we cannot change the sequence in which these thresholds appear, just the fact of participating in a study like this will raise awareness among teachers about the presence of these thresholds in the courses and that they need special consideration.