From Covalent Bonds to Intermolecular Forces:
- Androy Bruney
- 1 day ago
- 5 min read
Teaching Covalent Bonding as a Coherent System
If you’ve taught high school chemistry for any length of time, you’ve probably noticed a familiar pattern.
Students can get through the bonding unit. They can draw structures. They can memorize shapes. They can circle answers on a test.
But when you ask them to explain why a substance behaves the way it does — why one molecule dissolves easily, why another has a higher boiling point, why polarity actually matters — the understanding often feels fragile.
That disconnect isn’t because students are incapable. And it isn’t because teachers aren’t working hard enough.
In my experience, it happens because bonding is often taught as a series of topics rather than a single, connected idea.
This wrap-up post is meant to zoom out and show how covalent bonding, Lewis structures, VSEPR, polarity, and intermolecular forces can work together as one coherent system — the way chemists actually think about matter.
If you haven’t read the earlier posts in this series, you can jump to any stage depending on where your students tend to struggle
How to Teach Covalent Bonding in a Way Students Actually Understand(Building electron-sharing intuition before rules)
How I Get Students to Actually Master Lewis Dot Structures(Scaffolding + real-world context, without guesswork)
Why Molecular Geometry Finally Clicks When Students Can See VSEPR(Moving from Lewis structures to 3D reasoning)
How to Teach Molecular Polarity Without the Guesswork(Bond polarity → shape → symmetry → reasoning)
Why Intermolecular Forces Make Sense When Students Compare(Turning IMF into the payoff, not another memorization task)
Bonding Makes More Sense When Students See the Throughline
Early in my career, I taught bonding the way most of us were taught.
Covalent bonding came first. Then Lewis structures. Then VSEPR. Then polarity. Then intermolecular forces.
Each topic made sense on its own. But students treated them like separate chapters with separate rules.
What changed my teaching wasn’t a new activity or a better worksheet — it was a shift in sequencing and emphasis.
Instead of asking students to master each topic in isolation, I started focusing on the connections:
electrons are shared in bonds,
that sharing determines structure,
structure determines shape,
shape determines polarity,
and polarity explains intermolecular attractions.
Once students see that chain, bonding stops feeling arbitrary.
How Each Part of the Unit Builds on the Last
Covalent Bonding: Starting With Electrons, Not Symbols
I begin the unit with hands-on covalent bonding models, using tiles and dot-and-cross thinking to get students working with electrons before any formal rules appear.
Students physically build bonds, test possibilities, and discover for themselves why atoms share electrons in the first place. At this stage, I’m far less concerned with perfect drawings and far more concerned with whether students can explain why a bond forms and how electrons are involved.
This early modeling work builds intuition around valence and bonding that everything else depends on.
→ Read more about how I introduce covalent bonding here: How to Teach Covalent Bonding in a Way Students Actually Understand
Lewis Structures: Making Electron Movement Explicit
Once students are comfortable thinking about electron sharing, I transition into Lewis structures using a scaffolded approach.
Students follow a clear, step-by-step process at first so they can deliberately track where electrons come from and where they go. As confidence builds, I remove that scaffolding and allow students to work more independently.
Because this builds directly on the bonding models, Lewis structures stop feeling like a set of arbitrary rules — they become a way of recording something students already understand.
→ Read more about how I scaffold Lewis structures here: How I Get Students to Master Lewis Dot Structures
VSEPR and Molecular Geometry: When Shape Stops Being a Memorization Task
Before I ever ask students to memorize shapes or bond angles, I make geometry visible.
I use a mix of PhET simulations, build-it modeling cards, and guided visual tasks so students can see how electron domains arrange themselves in space. I intentionally delay formal vocabulary until students have handled and rotated models enough that the shapes feel intuitive.
This shifts VSEPR from a chart students memorize into a reasoning tool they actually use.
→ Read more about teaching VSEPR through models and visuals here: Why Molecular Geometry Finally Clicks When Students Can See VSEPR
Polarity: Turning Structure Into Meaning
Polarity is where the earlier work finally starts to pay off.
Instead of guessing based on electronegativity alone, students evaluate bond dipoles, molecular shape, and symmetry together. I rely heavily on polarity card sorts and comparison tasks so students have to justify their thinking out loud.
This is where structure begins to explain real chemical behavior — not just produce an answer.
→ Read more about how I teach polarity without shortcuts here: How to Teach Molecular Polarity Without Guessing
Intermolecular Forces: The Logical Conclusion
Intermolecular forces come last — not because they’re an add-on, but because they depend on everything before them.
Using an intermolecular forces card sort, students compare molecules and decide which attractions dominate and why. This naturally leads into discussions of boiling point, solubility, and physical properties.
Instead of memorizing force names, students weigh evidence and make comparisons.
→ Read more about teaching intermolecular forces through comparison here: Why Intermolecular Forces Finally Make Sense When Students Can See the Attractions
Why This Approach Holds Up Over Time
What ties this entire sequence together isn’t a single strategy or resource. It’s a consistent philosophy:
students reason before they memorize,
visuals and models come before abstraction,
practice follows understanding, not the other way around.
Over time, I’ve found that students retain more, rely less on guessing, and transfer their understanding more confidently to new situations.
Just as importantly, this approach gives teachers flexibility. You can slow down where students need it and move faster where they don’t — without losing coherence.
A Note for Busy Teachers
I know how unrealistic it can feel to rethink an entire unit while juggling labs, grading, and everything else that comes with teaching.
That’s why these ideas were developed incrementally — tested, adjusted, and refined over years in real classrooms.
You don’t need to use every piece at once. Even small shifts toward making connections explicit can have a noticeable impact.
Final Reflection
When bonding is taught as a connected system instead of a checklist of topics, students begin to see chemistry as logical rather than arbitrary.
They don’t just perform steps — they understand relationships.
And in my experience, that’s what makes learning stick long after the unit is over.
Bringing It All Together in One Place
Over time, I realized that what teachers often need isn’t another isolated activity — it’s a way to keep the entire bonding unit coherent from start to finish.
That’s why I eventually organized all of these ideas, activities, and sequences into a single Covalent Bonding → Structure → Polarity → Intermolecular Forces unit. Not as a script, but as a flexible system, teachers can adapt based on their students.
Some classes need more time with models. Others move quickly into application. The value of having the full sequence available is being able to respond to your students without losing the conceptual throughline.
If you’re looking for a way to teach bonding that feels intentional, connected, and grounded in how students actually learn, this full unit brings all of these pieces together.
