TY - JOUR
T1 - Valence Bond and Molecular Orbital
T2 - Two Powerful Theories that Nicely Complement One Another
AU - Galbraith, John Morrison
AU - Shaik, Sason
AU - Danovich, David
AU - Braïda, Benoît
AU - Wu, Wei
AU - Hiberty, Philippe
AU - Cooper, David L.
AU - Karadakov, Peter B.
AU - Dunning, Thom H.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
PY - 2021/12/14
Y1 - 2021/12/14
N2 - Introductory chemistry textbooks often present valence bond (VB) theory as useful, but incorrect and inferior to molecular orbital (MO) theory, citing the electronic structure of O2 and electron delocalization as evidence. Even texts that initially present the two theories on equal footing use language that biases students toward the MO approach. However, these "failures"of VB are really just misconceptions and/or misapplications of the theory. At their theoretical limits, both VB and MO are equivalent; they simply approach that limit from different sides. Certain concepts may be easier to grasp with one theory or the other so that having a commanding knowledge of both is extremely beneficial. However, presenting one theory as superior to the other suppresses the ability to look at a problem from both sides and is therefore detrimental to students and the whole of chemistry. It is time for VB and MO to be taught on equal footing like the complementary theories they are.
AB - Introductory chemistry textbooks often present valence bond (VB) theory as useful, but incorrect and inferior to molecular orbital (MO) theory, citing the electronic structure of O2 and electron delocalization as evidence. Even texts that initially present the two theories on equal footing use language that biases students toward the MO approach. However, these "failures"of VB are really just misconceptions and/or misapplications of the theory. At their theoretical limits, both VB and MO are equivalent; they simply approach that limit from different sides. Certain concepts may be easier to grasp with one theory or the other so that having a commanding knowledge of both is extremely beneficial. However, presenting one theory as superior to the other suppresses the ability to look at a problem from both sides and is therefore detrimental to students and the whole of chemistry. It is time for VB and MO to be taught on equal footing like the complementary theories they are.
KW - Curriculum
KW - First-Year Undergraduate/General
KW - History/Philosophy
KW - Misconceptions/Discrepant Events
KW - MO Theory
KW - Textbooks/Reference Books
KW - Valence Bond Theory
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85120038822&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00919
DO - 10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00919
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.systematicreview???
AN - SCOPUS:85120038822
SN - 0021-9584
VL - 98
SP - 3617
EP - 3620
JO - Journal of Chemical Education
JF - Journal of Chemical Education
IS - 12
ER -