Conceptual integration promotes trust and engagement in educational coaching, indicating new insights for practice.
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to advance educational coaching by integrating polyvagal theory (PVT) into the 5E Coaching Model (5E Model), positioning physiological safety, neuroception, and co-regulation as prerequisites for trust, engagement, and sustained learning. Design/methodology/approach The study uses a conceptual integration approach, drawing on an interdisciplinary narrative synthesis across coaching, neuroscience, and educational psychology. Each phase of the 5E Model (Engage, Explore, Explain, Execute, Evaluate) is re-mapped to autonomic-state considerations, with practical guidelines for immediate application. Findings We argue that coaching effectiveness is state dependent: even expertly crafted questions or feedback falter when the coach or coachee shifts out of a ventral vagal (social engagement) state, the physiological foundation for openness, trust, and reflective learning. Integrating polyvagal principles provides (1) a phase-by-phase toolkit for cultivating physiological and psychological safety, (2) explicit strategies for real-time co-regulation and pacing, and (3) an explanatory lens that reframes “resistance” or “avoidance” as adaptive nervous system responses rather than motivation deficits. Originality/value This paper unites PVT with an established coaching model, offering educators, mentors, and educational leadership coaches a science-informed roadmap for facilitating deeper relational impact. By treating coaching as a nervous system partnership, the paper opens new avenues for research on bio-behavioural markers (e.g. heart rate variability) and provides practitioners in education with concrete tactics to enhance learning readiness, resilience, and well-being. We conclude with a research agenda that prioritises cross-context evaluations, coach-training trials, and longitudinal mixed-methods studies to build the evidence base for autonomically informed coaching.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Colgate et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: