Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 4612 – 4616

5th World Conference on Educational Sciences - WCES 2013

Quantum model of chemical bonding: Barriers and learning

difficulties
A. Bouayad a *, F. Kaddari b, M. Lachkar c, A. Elachqar d
Laboratoire de Didactique, d Innovation Pedagogique et Curriculaire (LADIPEC)
Faculté de Sciences Dhar El Mahraz - Université Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah – Fès BP1796ATLAS
Fès Atlas - Fès – Marroc

Abstract

Understanding mysteries of the material cohesion must pass through the mastery of the concept "chemical bonding". However,
the literature shows that the concept is perceived as abstract and difficult for students of all grade levels and academic .Among
university students, in addition to the confusion caused by the plurality of chemical bonding models, the quantum approach is a
source of major difficulties impeding the deep understanding of the concept. The research presented here consists of
investigations with undergraduate students built around the fundamental concepts of the quantum model of the chemical bonding.
The results show that the fundamental concepts of the quantum chemical bonding model are partially mastered.

© 2013 The
Selection Authors.
and peer Published
review under the by Elsevier Ltd.
responsibility OpenDr.
of Prof. access under
Servet CC BY-NC-ND license.
Bayram
© 2013 The
Selection Authors
and/or Published
peer-review by Elsevier
under Ltd. All
responsibility rights reserved
of Academic World Education and Research Center.
Keywords: Chimical bonding, quantum model , atomic orbital , moleculaire orbital, obstacle d'apprentissage ;

1. Introduction

During the history of the chemical bonding concept, which is a key concept to explain the cohesion of the
material, several models have been developed and adopted. Some of these models such as the covalent bond are still
valid and are still very relevant in explaining the molecular architecture. This plurality of models, induces learning
obstacles, also for learners of all levels of education, model and actual behavior merge (Nakiboglu, 2003; Taber,
2001, 1997). These barriers are exacerbated by intrinsic difficulties to the latest models namely those resulting from
quantum theory. Indeed, researchers in educational science are unanimous on the fact that the chemical bond as a
physical process at the origin of the molecular structures stability and interaction between atoms and molecules is
very complex when it is described by quantum mechanics (Taber et all., 2010).
The complexity of the quantum model for the chemical bonding and its organizing concepts atomic orbital (AO),
molecular orbital (MO), hybridization theory of valence bond... is generated by the nature of quantum theory and
especially by its mathematical formalism. (Dumon & Hazzi, 2011; Tsapalis & Stefani, 2009; Gómez Sánchez &
Martín, 2003; Nakiboglu, 2003; Tsaparlis & Papaphotis, 2002; Taber, 2002a, 2002b, 2001 ; Shiland, 1997; Tsaparlis
1997; Zoller, 1990). Among the obstacles diagnosed we can mention several confusions regarding the concept of
orbital:

*Fatiha, KADDARI. Tel.: 00212670500064

E-mail address: Kaddari@yahoo.fr

1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Education and Research Center.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.994
 A. Bouayad et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 4612 – 4616 4613

Confusion among university students between the molecular orbitals (MO) and atomic ones (AO)
between the molecular orbitals and their mathematical modeling (Taber, 2002a, 2002b, 2001; Tsaparlis,
2002) as well as 'between molecular orbital and energy level (Sánchez Gómez, 2003; Nakiboglu, 2001).

The orbital is the electron path around the nucleus. This design highlighting the persistence of Bohr's
atomic model was found among learners of different levels (; Sánchez, 2003; Tsaparlis, 2002 ; Taber
2002a ; Nakiboglu & Benlikaya, 2001).

The hybrid orbitals are synonymous of molecular orbital (Dumon & Hazzi, 2011; Nakiboglou, 2003).
In a previous work carried out in the Moroccan context, it has been shown that, even after intense education on
the concept of the chemical bonding, a significant percentage of college students still convinced that chemical
bonding is covalent one (Bouayad submitted ). Can these students overcome this barrier and to effectively
understand fundamental concepts of the chemical bonding model according to quantum mechanics : AO, MO,
hybridization... ? This question is at the origin of this work.

2. Research Methodology

In order to provide answers to our research question, we conducted investigations with students at the end of the
undergraduate cycle of "Material Sciences Chemistry", where the chemical bonding is one of the basics concepts.
We developed a three parts questionnaire A, B and C. In each part, we established a number of proposals related to
the definition of a basic concept of the quantum theory of the chemical bond. Thus, in Part A, we focus on the
definition of AO and MO; and in Part B, the proposals revolves around the model of the chemical bonding : of
Valence bond theory and molecular orbital and finally in Part C is treated the notion that hybridization. The 52
students interviewed were asked to express their agreement (by choosing T) or disagreement (by choosing F) to
proposals. The students were interviewed during a class session.

3. Results

3.1. Question A : Atomic orbital and molecular orbital

The corresponding percentages for two modalities of response to questions A are summarized in Table 1.
Tableau 1 : Response in percentage to questions A

Question A Modalité de Pourcentage de

réponse réponse %
A-1: An atomic orbital is a mathematical function that describes the T 36,5
behavior of an electron in an atom. F 63,5
A-2: The definition of a molecular orbital is the same as that of the T 51,9
atomic orbital. F 48,1
A-3: The molecular orbital is the linear combination of atomic orbitals. T 51,9
F 48,1
A-4: The atomic orbital is the trajectory of the electron revolves T 42,3
around the nucleus. F 57,7
A-5: An atomic orbital is a surface on which the probability of T 51,9
presence of an electron in the molecule is constant. F 48,1

T : True ; F : False
Examination of the data for the three proposals (A-1, A-4 and A-5) defining the atomic orbital shows that the
essence of quantum theory is misunderstood. In fact, 63.5% of students surveyed did not recognize the atomic
orbital as a mathematical function describing the behavior of an electron in an atom (A-1). It seems that students do
not develop the mathematical formalism of quantum theory. The indeterminacy of the theory is also not perceived
4614 A. Bouayad et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 4612 – 4616

by the students since about half of them expressed their agreement to the (A-4) proposal which confirms that AO is
a path. Regard to the proposal (A-5) stating that AO is a surface at which is assigned a probability density, it is
adopted by half of tested population. It should be noted that this definition raises a profound questions and we can
even confirm that it is not clear. In fact, it refers simultaneously to the determinism (surface) and the indeterminism
(density of probability). Knowing that this definition of AO was found in several reference works used as teaching
aid (Tournier, 1970; Devoured. G, 1980), we can say that a priori definition of AO is not very explicit and unclear
even in the teaching knowledge. In addition, half of the interviewed population expressed agreement with the (A-3)
proposal, which suppose that MO is a linear combination of AO, correct idea in the context of molecular orbital
theory.

3.2 Question B: description of the chemical bonding

This Part B is divided into two blocks of propositions. In the first block, we are interested in the theory of valence
bond and in the second to the molecular orbital theory. The results are summarized in Tables 2 and 3.

3.2.1. Question B-I : valence bond theory

The corresponding percentages for two modalities of response to questions B-I are summarized in Table 2.
Tableau2 : Response in percentage to questions B-I

Question B-I Modalité de Pourcentage de

réponse réponse %
B-I-1: The valence bond theory is only valid for the covalent bond. T 84,6
F 15,4
B-I-2: The theory of valence bond cannot explain the existence of T 70
the H ion with one electron. F 30
B-I-3: The theory of valence bond is based on an approximation: T 30
we consider the molecule as consisting of a series of independent F 70
links.

Examination of the results Table 2 shows that the questioned population seems to have acquired the terms of
valence bond theory. This is justified by the high percentages of expressed agreements to the proposals (BI-1 and
BI-2). Thus, 84.6% confirm that this model is only valid for the covalent bonding and 70% admit that this theory has
its limitations and therefore cannot explain the existence of the molecular ion with one electron. However, the high
percentage of students who seem to ignore the approximation which is based on this theory (BI-3) shows that they
do not know the basics of the theory.

3.2.2. Question B - II: the molecular orbital method

The corresponding percentages for two modalities of response to questions B-II are summarized in Table 3.
Tableau3 : Response in percentage to questions B-II

Question B-II Modalité de réponse Pourcentage de

réponse %

B-II-1: The principle of the molecular orbital method is to T 84,8

consider the molecular orbital as a linear combination of F 15,2
atomic orbitals
B-II-2: The wave function of the molecule is obtained by the T 51,2
product of the wave functions of each molecular electron. The F 48,8
corresponding energy is, in first approximation, the total
energy of each electron.
B-II-3: The molecular orbital theory can justify the existence T 71,4
of one- electron bond (H2+). F 28,6
From the table,
we see that 84.8% of surveyed students agree that the principle of the molecular orbitals method is to consider the
 A. Bouayad et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 4612 – 4616 4615

molecular orbital as a linear combination of atomic orbitals and this theory can explain the existence of one-electron
ion 71.4%. In fact, half of the students 48.8% ignore the approximation of this theory (B-II-2).
Similarly, some aspects related to the molecular orbital theory seem to be well understood by students. This was
seen by the high percentage (84.8% and 71.4%) obtained in the case of proposals (II-B-1 and B -II-3). However, the
proposal (B-II-2), which incorporates the notion of the approximation theory, the percentages are revised downward
(51.2%). It can be deduced from this study that although students seem to know the principles of chemical bonding
models according to quantum mechanics, they are confused when it addresses the process of approximation which is
the essence of quantum theory.

3.3 Question C : l’hybridization

The corresponding percentages for two modalities of response to questions C are summarized in Table 4.
Tableau4 : Response in percentage to questions C

Question C Modalité de réponse Pourcentage de

réponse %
C-1: The principle of hybridization is the reorganization, in T 76,6
some cases, atomic orbitals of an atom. F 23,4
C-2: hybridization leads to molecular orbitals in number equal T 63,1
to that of atomic orbitals. F 36,9
C-3: Consideration of hybrid orbitals is a tool, in terms of T 74,5
calculations, to predict the structure of molecules. F 25,6

The very high percentage (76.6%) of the modality (T) to the proposal (C-1) indicates that a priori the concept of
hybridization as reorganization (AO) is well perceived by interviewed students. The same observation is obtained in
the case of the question (C-3) contributions of AO on the prediction of the molecular architecture (74.5% adopted
modality True). In addition, the proposal (C-2), we tried to see if students distinguish between AO and hybrid MO.
The analysis suggests that only (36.9%) of respondents distinguish between these two concepts. It should be noted
that this confusion has been identified by other researchers in other educational contexts (Dumon and Hazzi, 2011;
Nakiboglou, 2003).

4. Conclusion

At the end of this work, we can say that the results are consistent with those already cited by other researchers in
different educational systems. Indeed, the results states that students at the undergraduate cycle cannot completely
overcome obstacles diagnosed earlier in the beginning of their academic training despite various teachings on
chemical bonding. Concepts of the atomic orbital, molecular orbital theory, valence bonding theory, molecular
orbital theory and hybridization are partially mastered. Among the potential origins of these problems we can
mention the nature of the quantum theory drowned in the mathematical formalism and therefore unrelated to
ordinary intuitions and with no apparent link with the experience and empirical fields of reference.

References

Bouayad, A., Kaddari, F., Lachkar, M., & Aelachqar, (2012). A. Conceptions des étudiants en première année cycle Licence sur le concept
"liaison chimique". Radisma. Soumis.
Dévoré, G. (1980). Cours de Chimie. (4éme ed). Librairie Vuibert.
Hazzi, S., & Dumon, A. (2011). Conceptual integration of hybridization by Algerian students intending to teach physical sciences. Journal of
Chemistry Education Research and Practice.12, 443-453
Nakiboglu, C. (2003). Instructional misconceptions of Turkish prospective chemistry teachers about atomic orbitals and hybridization. Journal of
Chemistry Education Research and Practice. 4(2) 171-188.
Nakiboglu, C., & Benlikaya, R. (2001). Misconceptions about orbital concept and modern atom theory (in Turkish). Kastamonu Egitim Dergisi,
9 (1) 165-174.
4616 A. Bouayad et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 4612 – 4616

Pauling, L. (1960). The nature of the chemical bond and the structure of molecules and crystals: An introduction to modern structural chemistry
(3rd edition). Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Pauling, L., & Wilson, E.B. Jr. (1935). Introduction to quantum mechanics with applications to chemistry. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sánchez Gómez, P. J., & Martín, M. (2003). Quantum vs. Classical. Chemistry in university chemistry education : A case study of the role of
history in thinking the curriculum. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 4(2), 131-148.
Shiland, T. W. (1997). Quantum mechanics and conceptual change in high school chemistry textbooks. Journal of Research in Science
Education, 34, 535-545.
Stefani, C., & Tsaparlis, G. (2009). Students levels of explanations, models, and misconceptions in basic quantum chemistry: a
phenomenographic study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46 (5), p 520-536.
Taber, K.S., Nahum, T.L., Mamlok
Naaman, R., & Avi Hofstein. (2010). Teaching and learning the concept of chemical bonding. Studies in
Science Education. 46(2).
Taber, K.S. (2002a). Conceptualizing quanta : Illuminating the ground state of student inderstanding of atomic orbitals. Chemistry Education:
Research and Practice in Europe, 3, 145-158.
Taber, K.S. (2002b). Compounding quanta: Probing the frontiers of student understanding of molecular orbitals. Chemistry Education: Research
and Practice in Europe, 3, 159-173. [http://www.uoi.gr/cerp]
Taber, K.S. (2001). Building the structural concepts of Chemistry: Some considerations from educational research. Chemistry Education:
Research and Practice in Europe, 2, 123-158. [http://www.uoi.gr/cerp]
Tournier, M. (1970). Chimie, De la structure de l’atome aux phases de la Matière. Centre Educatif et Culturel Inc. Quebec.
Tsaparlis, G. and Papaphotis, G. (2002). Quantum-chemical concepts: Are they suitable for secondary students? Chemistry Education: Research
and Practice in Europe, 3, 129-144. [http://www.uoi.gr/cerp]
Tsaparlis, G. (2001). Towards a meaningful introduction to the Schrödinger equation through historical and heuristic approaches.Chemistry
Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 2(3), 203-213.
Tsaparlis, G. (1997). Atomic orbitals, molecular orbitals and related concepts: conceptual difficulties among chemistry students. Research in
Science Education, 27, 271-287.
Zoller, U. (1990). Students. misunderstandings and misconceptions in college freshman chemistry (general and organic). Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 27, 1053-1065.