Research: Science and Education

A New Bottom-Up Framework

for Teaching Chemical Bonding
Tami Levy Nahum,* Rachel Mamlok-Naaman, and Avi Hofstein
Department of Science Teaching, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovoth 76100, Israel; *Tami.Levy@Weizmann.ac.il
Leeor Kronik
Department of Materials and Interfaces, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovoth 76100, Israel

Chemical bonding theory is central to an understanding

of general chemistry (13). Clearly, the rigorous framework for
understanding chemical bonding is given by quantum mechanics. As famously noted by Dirac in 1929 (4), shortly after the
formulation of the theory,
The underlying physical laws necessary for the mathematical
theory of a large part of physics and the whole of chemistry
are thus completely known.

Almost eighty years after Diracs observation, the prevalent

teaching approach to chemical bonding and related ideas is still
not rooted within a uniform conceptual framework. Instead,
a plethora of bond models and bond types, the inter-relations
among which are often poorly understood by students, are
presented. The limitations and inaccuracies inherent in this approach, as manifested in many standard chemistry textbooks,
have been examined extensively in the chemistry education
literature (3, 511). Obviously, teaching chemistry, at either
the high school or the university level, from a strictly formal
quantum mechanical perspective is not only impractical, but also
undesirable. However, one can still seek an intuitively appealing framework that, on the one hand, is well rooted in formal
theory and, on the other hand, can treat all chemical bonds on
an equal footing (12, 13). We strongly believe that the diversity

properties

ionic
matter

covalent
matter

molecular
matter

metallic
matter

ionic
bonds

covalent
bonds

molecular
bonds

metallic
bonds

intermolecular bonds

van der Waals

forces

intramolecular bonds
(covalent bonds)

hydrogen
bonds

Figure 1. A schematic illustration of the traditional approach for

teaching chemical bonding.

1680

of bonding mechanisms and variety of chemical tools, such as

valence bond (VB) and molecular orbital (MO), are essential
for chemical intuition and creativity. However, it is possible
to show how this diversity arises from a small number of fundamental principles instead of presenting it as a large number of
disparate concepts.
In this article, we discuss what we view as some of the more
problematic aspects of the traditional approach for teaching
bonding. We then suggest that these can be alleviated by adopting a new bottom-up approach that rationalizes all bonds
and structures based on a small set of underlying assumptions.
Finally, we briefly discuss our initial experiences with this teaching approach.
Difficulties in the Traditional Approach
The traditional approach to teaching chemical bonding
can be succinctly characterized by the illustration given in Figure 1. As discussed by Sproul (8) and Hurst (3), many general
chemistry textbooks and courses classify matter into four major
categoriesionic, covalent, molecular, and metallicbased
on macroscopic physical properties (e.g., boiling and melting
points, electrical conductivity, water solubility, etc.). Chemical
bonding in each category is discussed and used to rationalize
the properties of that category. Thus, different types of bonds
are both presented as and used as different entities emanating
from different bonding models.
Partly, chemical bonding is presented in the above manner
for historical reasons1 (3). Indeed, chemistry developed early on
by collecting a comprehensive set of empirical observations and
by attempting to find order in the observations by means of various classification schemes. Bonding models, often spectacularly
successful, then arose as part of a natural attempt to rationalize
the classification. New, increasingly refined bonding models
were then simply added to the existing ones in many textbooks.
However, generally speaking the historical perspective is not
necessarily the pedagogical one. Specifically, the stratal structure
of bonding models is problematic because students are easily
confused by multiple theories of the same phenomenon (3, 14,
15), especially when each of the theories is mostly heuristic in
nature.
Another reason for the widespread use of the traditional
approach is that it provides (relatively) clear-cut definitions
that facilitate instruction, provide a sense of security for the
students, and allow for an efficient evaluation process based on
clear-cut answers to well-defined questions (16). Unfortunately,
these advantages, which are not necessarily consistent with the

Journal of Chemical Education Vol. 85 No. 12 December 2008 www.JCE.DivCHED.org Division of Chemical Education

Research: Science and Education

ultimate learning goals (7, 17) are sometimes attained at the

price of over-simplification and over-generalization, which have
been shown to be pedagogical learning impediments (18). First,
the presentation of each bond type as a different entity that belongs to a specific category (see Figure 1) does not foster a deeper
understanding of chemical bonds. Specifically, it may obscure
the important notion of a unified rationalization of all chemical
bonds based on underlying principles. Second, over-emphasis
of the four ideal categories is misleading and may actually
hinder the learning process. While the ideal classification is
not without merit, we now know that many important groups
of modern materials simply cannot be forced into one of the
rigid categories. In the following, we illustrate some limitations
of this rigid approach with specific examples.

textbooks metals are characterized by a set of common physical

and chemical properties, for example, malleability, ductility,
low ionization potential, and so forth. But the fact is that there
is not even one chemical property common to all metals and
there is a great variability of parameters in any other quantity, for
example, brittleness, conductivity, boiling point, and so forth.
Over-simplification occurs because many textbooks introduce a
metallic bond as metal ions floating in a sea of electrons. This
analogy is problematic because it presents the metallic bond as
a bonding entity that is entirely different from the covalent one,
whereas a more modern description views both types of bonds
as involving electron sharing. The difference is again explained
in terms of a continuum scale, this time involving the degree of
electron delocalization (11).

Covalent versus Ionic Bonding

Typically, covalent and ionic bonds are presented dichotomously, as electron sharing or electron transferring bonds,
respectively. However, in heteroatomic systems, bonding is better described in terms of a continuum of a covalentionic scale
(8, 17, 19). Furthermore, bonds are purely covalent between two
identical atoms, but purely ionic bonds actually do not exist at
all. The dichotomous presentation impedes the understanding
of the more subtle scale.

Hydrogen and van der Waals Bonds

In most textbooks, covalent and ionic bonds are described
as real chemical bonds, whereas hydrogen and van der Waals
bonds are often presented as just forces (9). Again this distinction is far too rigid. While the relative strengths of different
types of bonds are, of course, very important, even weak bonds
do indeed bond different chemical units and sub-units together
and can have profound chemical consequences (17, 19), for example, in biochemistry. Therefore, a continuum scale is a more
appropriate scientific description.
Two related over-simplifications are the classification of
hydrogen bonds as strictly intermolecular, whereas they are
often intramolecular as well (e.g., 21), and the discussion of
such bonds only when N, O, or F atoms are involved, whereas
hydrogen bonds, albeit weaker or non-conventional, may occur
with other atoms or groups as well (e.g., 22, 23).
To summarize, we view the traditional approach that is
characterized by clear-cut definitions and rigid distinctions as an
insufficient basis for rationalization of current chemical knowledge. This problem can be amplified by traditional assessment
methods, in which the superficial study of classification and
rules by rote is rewarding to both students and teachers (16,
17). Despite this, the traditional general chemistry curriculum
as a whole has by and large been taken for granted by science
educators for over a century (15).

Electronegativity and Bond Polarity

Because within the traditional approach bond polarity is
essentially viewed as an additional characteristic of covalent
bonds (3, 19), the important concept of electronegativity (EN)
is only introduced in the context of polar covalent bonds and
not as an integral part of bond-polarity concepts in general (13).
EN differences between atoms are then used as an indication of
whether compounds should be classified as ionic or covalent.
However, EN differences are not the ultimate measure for predicting bond type (8). Indeed, cases of bonds between atoms
with large EN differences that possess a significant covalent
nature nevertheless are known experimentally (20).
The Octet Rule
Because it is simple to visualize and use, the octet rule is
often presented as an obligatory condition for proper bonding. Thus, students often adopt the anthropomorphic notion of
atoms wanting to possess octets or full outer shells and that
chemical reactions occur to allow atoms to achieve this natural desire (9). But this causes some students to have difficulties
in accepting anything that is not clearly explicable in octet
terms, for example, hydrogen bonds or even covalent bonds
or transition metal bonding not leading to octets (13). The
octet rule is certainly a time-honored useful guideline and shall
remain so. However, it is not an explanation for bond formation.
For these reasons, Hurst (3) and Taber and Coll (19) suggested
that an over-emphasized octet framework may actually impede
higher-level learning process.
Metallic Bonds
The traditional discussion of metals and metallic bonds may
involve both an over-generalization and an over-simplification.
Over-generalization occurs because in many general chemistry

A New Bottom-Up Framework

Based on the above arguments, a need for a new framework,
within which chemical bonding can be taught, is evident. Here,
we present such a framework, where the traditional approach is
substituted by a bottom-up approach based on fundamental
principles. The development process of this framework was
based on a collaborative work with leading chemistry teachers,
chemical educators, and eminent research chemists (17). Our
focus here is on a suitable curricular basis. Teaching strategies
and assessment methods associated with this curriculum are
of course of much practical importance, but as the curriculum
clearly comes first (24), these will be discussed elsewhere.
The general structure of our proposed framework is illustrated schematically in Figure 2. It is based on introducing
salient properties of isolated atoms (stage 1), followed by a
discussion of general principles of chemical bonding between

Division of Chemical Education www.JCE.DivCHED.org Vol. 85 No. 12 December 2008 Journal of Chemical Education

1681

Research: Science and Education

bond length

stage
properties

structures

bondsa continuum approach

the chemical bondfundamental principles

a single atomelemental principles

Figure 2. A schematic illustration of a new bottom-up framework

for teaching chemical bonding.

two atoms (stage 2). The general principles are then used to
present the different traditional categories of chemical bonding
as extreme cases of various continuum scales (stage 3). Equipped
with this knowledge, students can then rationalize different
structures (stage 4) and ultimately properties (stage 5), within
a coherent picture.
We emphasize that the general structure outlined in Figure
2 is in fact appropriate for different levels of chemistry students
(from high school students to advanced undergraduate students), depending on the mathematical and physical rigor of
the discussion. Here, we focus on high school studies, with occasional comments on first-year university instruction as well.
Stage 1: A Single Atom
Our suggested presentation begins with the description of a
single atom. First, single atoms are the obvious building blocks
of all chemical systems. Second, it is a relatively easy point to
introduce two concepts that are key in subsequent discussion:
Coulombs law and the wave nature of electrons. Coulombs law
is central to chemistry because electrical interactions are overwhelmingly the dominant ones in the range and energy scale
relevant to chemistry. However, Coulombs law is obviously not
enough because quantum theory tells us that the picture of an
electron orbiting a nucleus owing to an attractive force is not at
all the same as the picture of, say, the moon orbiting the earth
owing to an attractive force. Instead, understanding electrons
requires that we consider their wave-like character. In other
words, we immediately do away with the physically wrong and
conceptually misleading analogy of electron behavior being the
same as that of a classical billiard ball. Instead, we explain that
electrons in atoms exist as fuzzy probability clouds of negative
charge around the nucleus, which we call orbitals. At the high
school level, this can be rationalized by means of a descriptive
treatment of some experiments that rule out the billiard ball
picture. At more advanced levels the justification can (and
should!) be refined. This is also the appropriate point to introduce the important chemical concepts of shells and sub-shells as
well as valence electrons.
The discussion of single atoms can also be used to introduce
electron spin and Paulis exclusion principle at a descriptive level.

1682

Internuclear Distance

Energy

bond energy

repulsive forces
greater than
attractive forces

the equilibrium
pointthe most
stable bond length

attractive forces
greater than
repulsive forces

Figure 3. A schematic energy curve for any two atoms that interact.

However, it can also be deferred to a later point as students

(and scientists) find quantum concepts difficult to digest at
first encounter. At higher levels (but not the high school one),
we recommend the introduction of Paulis exclusion principle
in terms of the more general principle of anti-symmetric wavefunctions. (We note in passing that a particularly intuitive and
appealing argument for simple wave function symmetry has been
given by Bethe and Jackiw in ref 25).
Stage 2: The Chemical Bond
The primary purpose of this stage is to provide a qualitative
description that is conceptually consistent with quantum mechanics but gives a clear, intuitive answer to the question which
puzzles many students, What really causes atoms to interact
and form a chemical bond?
In this stage, we aim to convince students that there is
nothing mysterious about chemical bond formation. Instead, we begin by introducing (or refreshing, depending on
the amount of physics background) the concepts of energy and
force and the relation between them. The understanding that
nuclei are held together because of nucleuselectron attraction, which is a simple consequence of Coulombs law, is the
first step towards a rational view of chemistry that is not based
on rules of thumb, anthropomorphic concepts, and so forth.
A crucial concept is that stability, in general, is obtained by
minimizing energy (the distinction between energy and free
energy is obviously important, but it can be discussed later
on). Once this is understood, all chemical bonds, of any type,
can be rationalized in terms of energy stabilization (i.e., bond
energy) and all equilibrium interatomic distances (i.e., bond
lengths) reflect positions where there is no net force on the
nuclei, that is, attraction balances repulsion. The salient point
to be emphasized at this stage is the relationship between
Coulombs law and stability in terms of a balance of the various attractive and repulsive Coulomb potential energies, as
well as the electron kinetic energy. In other words, the student
should understand that chemical bonding is nothing but a
consequence of Coulombs law, except that it is a non-trivial
consequence because it is cloaked by the wave-like nature of
the electron and the laws of quantum physics.

Journal of Chemical Education Vol. 85 No. 12 December 2008 www.JCE.DivCHED.org Division of Chemical Education

Research: Science and Education

Again, a detailed teaching strategy is beyond the scope of

this article. However, we believe that, at least at the high school
level, the above principles are best explained by considering the
energy curve for two isolated atoms, as shown in Figure 3.
Specifically, Figure 3 can be rationalized step-wise by
realizing that, if there is any net gain of energy from bringing
atoms together, there will be a region where, even though nuclei
generally repel each other as they are both positive, there will
be net attraction because the nucleuselectron attraction acts
as an effective glue for the nuclei (we note in passing that at
a more advanced level, it can be pointed out, or even shown,
that the gluing effect is inherently quantum mechanical and
is not always obtained if the system is treated classically; refs 5,
26, 27).
If the atoms are close enough, there will be net repulsion.
The equilibrium distance, namely, the bond length, is then simply the special point at which net attraction exactly offsets net
repulsion and the bond energy is the net gain in energy obtained
at this point, with respect to the well-separated-atoms limit.
This is a stable equilibrium point because either increasing or
decreasing the interatomic distance requires energy.
Importantly, Figure 3 is general. It describes the relation
between energy and internuclear distance for the H2 dimer as
well as it describes the Li2 dimer, the NaCl heterodimer, or even
the He2 dimer! Obviously, there is very much that separates H2
and He2. However, equipped with the understanding that all interatomic interaction is alike at least in some aspects, the student
is now ready for a discussion of specific attraction mechanisms
based on variety of chemical tools, that is, for stage 3.
Stage 3: Bonds, A Continuum Approach
One of the key goals of the proposed framework is to
stress that a continuum scale exists between extreme cases of
qualitatively different bonding scenarios. Having understood,
in stage 2, the common denominator of all bonds, we can now
rationalize some distinct bonding categories, as shown in Figure
4. Again, we find the example of a chemical bond in a diatomic
molecule to be most instructive because of the focus on one
bonding entity only.
Perhaps the easiest bond to rationalize is the ionic one,
where charge transfer results, effectively, in a cation and anion
that attract each other as an obvious consequence of Coulombs
law. Pure covalent bonds (such as H2 and Li2) are then rationalized in terms of electron-pair bonding, charge sharing, and
orbital overlap (at higher levels an introduction to the concepts
of the molecular orbital by means of a linear combination of
atomic orbitals and bond order can be included). Once the
concepts of ionic and covalent bond are internalized, we recommend stressing right away that the nature of most bonds is in fact
partly covalent and partly ionic, that is, polar, as generally both
charge sharing and charge transfer aid energy stabilization.
We then further recommend that this continuum of bonding
is immediately related to a continuum of bond strength, as
shown in Figure 4. This continuum follows Pauling (28; p 100),
who recognized that bonds between unlike atoms typically
have greater bond energy than that of the average of the corresponding homoatomic bonds. Of course, it is important to add
caveatsbond strength is not only a function of the degree of
ionicity but also a function of atomic size and other factors.

In this context, the concept of EN can be introduced early,

and more importantly, naturally, as one way of quantifying the
covalenceionicity balance. As noted by Noy et al., EN is an
important part of the intuitive approach that helps chemists in
understanding nature. In particular, it provides a measure to the
uneven distribution of electrons among bound atoms and the
probability of electron transfer among two unbound atoms (or
molecules) (29; p 3684).
It is then natural to introduce hydrogen bonds, in terms of
attraction between partial effective charges (positive, on the hydrogen atom that is bound to an atom that is part of an electron
withdrawing group, and negative, on an electronegative atom or
group), augmented by a weak covalent component (3032). In
this approach, however, we emphasize how this explains their
specificity and directionality and that such bonds cover a fairly
broad range of bond strengths and lengths, that is, have their
own continuum scale.
Finally, we recommend that van der Waals bonds are introduced, again via diatomic molecules. The He2 dimera large
bond length, very weakly bound molecule (33)can be used for
introducing the concept of induced dipoleinduced dipole interactions, which can be rationalized as yet another manifestation
of Coulombs law. Here, it is easy to convince the student that a
covalent bond cannot explain the bonding as there is no meaningful orbital overlap, the lack of which is rationalized in terms
of the filled shells of the He atom (in advanced levels this can
be related to the bond order). Finally, differences in the intermolecular interaction between dimer pairs, for example, ICl versus
Br2, can be used to introduce dipoledipole interactions.
After the prototypical bonding scenarios have been introduced, several additional comments are important. First, it is
important to understand that the traditional intermolecular
versus intramolecular division, especially for hydrogen bonds,
is superficial; if the relative scale of bond strengths is understood,
one can understand that liquid water turns to gas by breaking
hydrogen bonds even without this distinction. Second, it is essential to emphasize that the transition between covalent-polar
bonds and hydrogen bonds is blurred, rather than sharp. Finally,
it is also important to tell the students that many chemists prefer
not to use the word bond for van der Waals interactions, as
they prefer to reserve this term for specific, directional interactions. It is important to make sure the students understand this
distinction, irrespective of the semantics chosen.

ionic bonds
polar bonds
covalent bonds
hydrogen bonds
van der Waals bonds

Increasing Bond Strength

Figure 4. A schematic continuous scale of bond strengths.

Division of Chemical Education www.JCE.DivCHED.org Vol. 85 No. 12 December 2008 Journal of Chemical Education

1683

Research: Science and Education

At an advanced level, other specific bonding scenarios, for

example, charge-shift bonding (34), can be discussed, with an
emphasis on how they too can be rationalized as special cases of
the general principles.
Stage 4: Structures
Once bonding is understood, the relevant key ideas immediately explain different molecular structures. Here, one can
introduce a variety of concepts, depending on the level of detail
and depth sought. Valency is clearly one concept of much importance. Atomic valence shell and periodicity properties can then
be discussed (35) Through valency, Lewis dot diagrams (36)
can be rationalized and the octet rule can then be presented
as a guideline (as opposed to mandatory rule) with respect to
electron pairing, together with other shell rules, for example,
an 18-electron rule or a rule of 12 for transition metals (13).
Importantly, one can then distinguish between molecules that
are physically stable (i.e., nuclei at equilibrium) and molecules
that are chemically stable, for example, with respect to addition
of more atoms (e.g., by comparing CH, CH2, CH3, and CH4).
This then ties in the knowledge garnered so far with the tools
that we like to call chemical intuition that are obviously of
much value in chemistry. Simple models, such as the valence shell
electron pair repulsion (VSEPR) theory can then be introduced
and used (likely mainly in the context of organic compounds).
If desired, ideas of molecular orbital calculations in general,
and possibly those of density functional theory (DFT; ref 37)
in particular, can be introduced, at least at the philosophical
level, at this stage. It can then be explained that DFT provides
both a solid basis for chemical concepts (38) and a practical
computational tool for chemical predictions.
Once molecular structures are understood, one can introduce giant structures, that is, structures that do not possess welldefined sub-units. Importantly, these need to be understood
using the same set of principles. For ionic giant structures, this
provides a perfect opportunity to explain the difference between,
for example, HF and NaCl. Because HF is not as ionic as NaCl
(~40% versus ~80% ionicity, respectively), it is reasonable that
HF does not form an ionic giant structure whereas NaCl does.
For metallic giant structures, metallic bonding is introduced at this stage as essentially covalent bonding with
delocalized electrons. This introduces yet another continuum
scalethat of electron delocalization, obtained when bringing
together a large number of metal atoms (11). At this stage, we
recommend to emphasize the relation between bonding type
and structure as much as possible.
Stage 5: Properties
Finally, the stage is set for a detailed discussion of the interrelation between bonding, structure, and propertiesa key issue
in chemistry. We do not discuss this in detail, despite its great
importance, as there are obviously many possibilities and as a
detailed discussion is clearly outside the scope of the present
manuscript. We only emphasize that the tools acquired so far
really do allow for linking the macroscopic and sub-microscopic
points of view in a logical fashion.

1684

Practical Advantages of the New Framework:

Preliminary Results
In our opinion, the proposed new framework overcomes
a major difficulty in the traditional approach by removing the
artificial division between different types of bonding. Instead,
a variety of bonds are introduced to the students from a continuum point of view. Furthermore, a gradual exposure of the
main concepts and ideas, in five stages, allow us to overcome
the dichotomous classification without falling into the trap of
over-simplifications and over-generalizations. Most importantly,
we believe that such a framework facilitates the attainment of
two important objectives: (i) preventing pedagogical impediments for further studies and (ii) fostering the understanding
that molecular species and bonding scenarios that textbooks
often designate as exceptions can, in fact, be rationalized by
the same small number of principles used to rationalize the
regular cases.
We believe that our approach may enhance the students
understanding of bonding and foster them to think scientifically. However, we are also aware of its weaknessusing abstract
theoretical ideas right from the start may prove difficult for
some students. In the academic year 2006 we started a preliminary implementation of an experimental teaching unit that
was developed based on the above ideas. At present, this unit
has been tested in ten 11th grade classes and more research is
clearly needed. However, preliminary input from both teachers
and students is encouragingthey ask creative questions, they
start to think!
We end this article by quoting one teacher and one student.
These quotes strongly enhance our own faith in the presented
approach.
Teacher: I loved the idea that I can teach and explain all
bonds based on a uniform model. Starting from submicroscopic ideas and moving up to the material world improved
the students learning and thinking.
Student: The continuum scale of bonds helped me to
understandlast year the teacher said: its one of the two
(covalent/ionic)

In 2009, the new program will be implemented in all 11th

grade chemistry classes, which is possible because the educational system in Israel is centralized. We plan to conduct a full
scale procedure, assessing both the teaching and learning, and
to report broader and statistically sound field results in due
course.
Summary
We believe that the traditional curriculum for teaching
bonding is insufficient and to some extent inaccurate. There is a
need for a coherent conceptual model for all bonds that is consistent with present scientific knowledge and that provides the
student with the proper intellectual infrastructure for further
studies. In this article, we presented a general model for bonding
that can be presented at different levels of sophistication depending on the students level and needs. This is achieved without sacrificing the benefits of traditional qualification of different bond

Journal of Chemical Education Vol. 85 No. 12 December 2008 www.JCE.DivCHED.org Division of Chemical Education

Research: Science and Education

types as this qualification is presented along a continuum scale

of chemical bonding. The pedagogical strategy for teaching this
model is a bottom-up one, starting with basic principles and
ending with specific properties. It is our hope that its use could
reduce the use of over-simplifications and over-generalizations
and remove learning impediments so as to improve students
understanding of the nature of chemical bonds.
Acknowledgments
We thank Richard N. Zare (Stanford University) for illuminating discussions and encouraging this approach to understanding (and teaching) chemical bonding. We also thank Roald
Hoffmann (Cornell University) and Sason Shaik (Hebrew
University) for their valuable and inspiring comments on the
ideas expressed in this article.
Note

1. Personal communication with Roald Hoffmann, Dec 23,
2004.

Literature Cited
1. Fensham, P. Concept Formation. In New Movements in the Study
and Teaching of Chemistry; Daniels, D. J., Ed.; Temple Smith:
London, 1975; pp 199217.
2. Gillespie, R. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 862864.
3. Hurst, O. J. Chem. Educ. 2002, 79, 763764.
4. Dirac, P. A. M. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 1929, 123 (792),
714733.
5. Ashkenazi, G.; Kosloff, R. Chem. Educator 2006, 11, 6676.
6. Justi, R.; Gilbert, J. Models and Modeling in Chemical Education.
In Chemical Education: Towards Research-Based Practice; Gilbert,
J. K., Jong, O. D., Justy, R., Treagust, D. F., Van Driel, J. H., Eds.;
Kluwer: Dordrecht, Netherlands, 2002; pp 4768.
7. Taagepera, M.; Arasasingham, R.; Potter, F.; Soroudi, A.; Lam, G.
J. Chem. Educ. 2002, 79, 756762.
8. Sproul, G. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 387390.
9. Taber, K. S. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 1998, 20, 597608.
10. Hawkes, S. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 421423.
11. Myers, R. T. J. Chem. Educ. 1979, 56, 712713.
12. Weinhold, F. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 11411146.
13. Weinhold, F.; Landis, C. R. Valency and Bonding: A Natural Bond
Orbital DonorAcceptor Perspective; Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge, 2005.
14. Henderleiter, J.; Smart, R.; Anderson, J.; Elian, O. J. Chem. Educ.
2001, 78, 11261130.

15. de Vos, W.; Pilot, A. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 494499.

16. Levy Nahum, T.; Hofstein, A.; Mamlok-Naaman, R.; Bar-Dov,
Z. Chem. Educ: Res. Prac. Eur. 2004, 5, 301325.
17. Levy Nahum, T.; Mamlok-Naaman, R.; Hofstein, A.; Krajcik, J.
Sci. Educ. 2007, 91, 579603.
18. Taber, K. S. Sci. Educ. 2005, 89, 94116.
19. Taber, K. S.; Coll, R. Bonding. In Chemical Education: Towards
Research-Based Practice; Gilbert, J. K., Jong, O. D., Justy, R., Treagust, D. F., Van Driel, J. H., Eds.; Kluwer: Dordrecht, Netherlands,
2002; pp 213234.
20. Woicik, J. C.; Nelson, E. J.; Kronik, L.; Jain, M.; Chelikowsky,
J. R.; Heskett, D.; Berman, L. E.; Herman, G. S. Phys. Rev. Lett.
2002, 89, 14 (077401). Woicik, J. C.; Yekutiel, M.; Nelson, E. J.;
Jacobson, N.; Pfalzer, P.; Klemm, M.; Horn, S.; Kronik, L. Phys.
Rev. B 2007, 76, 16 (165101).
21. zen, A. S.; De Proft, F.; Aviyente, V.; Geerlings, P. J. Phys. Chem.
2006, 110, 58605868.
22. Naaman, R.; Vager, Z. J. Chem. Phys. 1999, 110, 359362.
23. Nakanaga, T.; Buchhold, K. Chem. Phys. 2002, 277, 171178.
24. Goedhart, M. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84, 971976.
25. Bethe, H. A.; Jackiw, R. Intermediate Quantum Mechanics, 3rd
ed.; Benjamin Cummings: San Francisco, 1986; pp 2025.
26. Teller, E. Rev. Mod. Phys. 1962, 34, 627631.
27. Kurth, S.; Perdew, J. P. Int. J. Quant. Chem. 2000, 77, 814818.
28. Pauling, L. The Nature of the Chemical Bond, 3rd ed.; Cornell
University Press: Ithaca, NY, 1967.
29. Noy, D.; Fiedor, L.; Hartwich, G.; Scheer, H.; Scherz, A. J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 1998, 120, 36843693.
30. Martin, T.; Zygmunt, S. Nat. Struc. Bio. 1999, 6, 403406.
31. Steiner, T.; Desiraju, G. Chem. Commun. 1998 (8), 891892.
32. Gilli, P.; Bertolasi, V.; Ferreti, V.; Gilli, G. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1994,
116, 909915.
33. Lohr, L. L.; Blinder, M. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84, 860863.
34. Hiberty, P. C.; Megret, C.; Song, L.; Wu, W.; Shaik, S. J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 28362843.
35. Bent, H.; Weinhold, F. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84, 11451146.
36. Lewis, G. L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1916, 38, 762.
37. Koch, W.; Holthausen, M. C. A Chemists Guide to Density
Functional Theory, 2nd ed.; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany,
2001.
38. Geerlings, P.; De Proft, F.; Langenaeker, W. Chem. Rev. 2003, 103,
17931874.

Supporting JCE Online Material

http://www.jce.divched.org/Journal/Issues/2008/Dec/abs1680.html
Abstract and keywords
Full text (PDF) with links to cited JCE articles

Division of Chemical Education www.JCE.DivCHED.org Vol. 85 No. 12 December 2008 Journal of Chemical Education

1685