The wilbur schramm model of communication

The Wilbur Schramm model of communication explains communication as a two-way process in which people create, interpret and respond to messages. Its central lesson is that sending information is not the same as establishing understanding. People interpret messages through their own experience, and feedback helps reveal whether the intended meaning has been understood.

For managers, tutors, trainers and colleagues, this offers a useful way to examine everyday misunderstandings. Before assuming someone has ignored an instruction, ask: did the message mean the same thing to them as it did to you?

This guide explains the model, follows one workplace example in detail and shows how to apply it without treating it as a complete explanation of human communication.

What is schramm’s model of communication?

Schramm’s model is usually taught as an interactive alternative to a simple, one-way account of communication. Rather than a sender transmitting information to a passive receiver, both people interpret messages and contribute responses.

You may encounter different diagrams under the Schramm name. Some emphasise overlapping fields of experience. The circular version often called the Osgood–Schramm model represents both participants as encoders, interpreters and decoders. These versions share an emphasis on interpretation, but their diagrams and labels are not identical.

For practical purposes, the important ideas are:

• Encoding: putting an idea into words, images, gestures or another communicable form.
• Decoding and interpretation: making sense of the message received.
• Fields of experience: the knowledge, language, culture, assumptions and previous experiences each person brings.
• Feedback: a response that gives the other person information about how their message has been received.

Noise is also useful when applying the model, although textbook presentations differ in whether they show it explicitly. It belongs to the wider study of communication and should not be presented as something unique to Schramm.

The University of Minnesota’s open textbook chapter on the communication process provides a helpful academic overview of transmission, interaction and transaction models, including feedback and context.

How the main elements work together

Imagine communication as a loop: one person expresses an idea, another interprets it and responds, and the first person uses that response to decide what to say or do next.

Encoding and interpretation

Encoding involves choices. A supervisor might explain a task verbally, send a checklist or demonstrate it. Each approach highlights some information and may leave other information unstated.

The receiver does not simply absorb an unchanged meaning. They interpret the message. A phrase such as “complete the review” could mean checking a document, recording a decision or formally approving it, depending on their experience.

Clear wording helps, but clarity must be judged from the recipient’s perspective, not only the speaker’s.

Fields of experience

A field of experience is the background that shapes what a message means to someone. It includes professional knowledge, familiarity with an organisation, language, previous learning and expectations about how work happens.

When fields overlap, people have more shared reference points. Two experienced payroll colleagues may understand an abbreviation immediately. A new administrator may not.

Limited overlap does not make communication impossible. Examples, explanations and demonstrations can build shared understanding. Nor does a shared job title guarantee identical interpretations.

Feedback

Feedback is the return message. It might be a question, a written reply, a demonstration or a facial expression.

However, not every response offers reliable evidence of understanding. A nod might indicate agreement, politeness or reluctance to ask a question. “I’ve read it” confirms receipt more clearly than comprehension.

Useful feedback makes interpretation visible: “I’ll check the figures, flag any differences and send the file to you before approval.” The original speaker can then confirm or correct that understanding.

Noise

Noise means interference that makes a message harder to receive or interpret. Common teaching categories include:

• Physical noise: background conversation, machinery or an unreliable audio connection.
• Semantic noise: unclear wording, unfamiliar jargon or different meanings attached to the same term.
• Psychological noise: worry, distraction or assumptions that influence attention and interpretation.

These categories are prompts for investigation, not diagnoses of the person receiving the message. Often the remedy is to change the wording, setting or process.

A workplace example: handing over a customer complaint

The following illustrative scenario brings fields of experience, feedback and noise together.

Priya manages a customer service team at a UK housing association. Lewis has recently joined after working in retail. During a busy afternoon, Priya says:

“Please log this as a formal complaint, escalate it to the duty manager and acknowledge it today.”

Lewis replies, “Yes, no problem.” Priya assumes the handover is complete.

Where their fields of experience differ

For Priya, “formal complaint” refers to a defined internal process. It means selecting a particular case category, recording the resident’s concerns, routing the case correctly and sending the approved acknowledgement.

In Lewis’s previous role, “log a complaint” meant adding a note to a customer record. “Escalate” usually meant mentioning the issue to a supervisor when they were available.

Both understand the everyday words. They do not share the same procedural meaning. Priya has encoded several organisational expectations into three short instructions; Lewis has interpreted them using a different workplace background.

This is why telling someone to “listen more carefully” would miss the problem. The missing information is about the organisation’s process.

How noise makes the gap harder to notice

Their conversation happens beside a busy telephone queue. Lewis is also concerned about appearing slow during his first week.

Several barriers overlap:

• Telephone conversations make it harder to hear the full instruction.
• “Escalate” leaves the required action unclear.
• Lewis’s concern about asking a basic question discourages clarification.

Moving somewhere quieter would address one barrier, but not all three. Priya also needs to explain the process and make questions welcome.

How feedback changes the exchange

Instead of ending with “Does that make sense?”, Priya could say:

“I’ve used a few internal terms there. What steps are you planning to take? That will help me check whether I’ve explained our process clearly.”

Lewis describes adding a note and speaking to the supervisor later. This is useful feedback because it exposes the difference before the task is completed.

Priya shows him the correct case category, explains the routing step and opens the acknowledgement template. Lewis then summarises the sequence and checks who will confirm receipt of the escalation.

The revised exchange does more than repeat the original message. It creates shared reference points, reduces ambiguity and gives both people evidence of the agreed action.

For work where communication failures can create serious risks, this should be supported by formal procedures. The Health and Safety Executive’s guidance on safety-critical communications is a useful reference. A conversational model is not a substitute for an effective handover system.

A further education example: explaining an assignment

Consider a tutor on a Level 3 vocational course who asks learners to “evaluate two approaches and justify your recommendation”. This is another illustrative example, rather than a reported case.

The tutor understands “evaluate” as weighing strengths and limitations against relevant criteria. A learner may interpret it as describing each approach and choosing a favourite.

Repeating the command word more firmly will not necessarily help. The tutor could instead:

1. Explain what evaluation looks like in this assignment.
2. Compare a short descriptive response with an evaluative response.
3. Ask learners to identify what makes the second response different.
4. Invite each learner to outline one comparison and explain the evidence they would use.

The learner’s outline becomes feedback. It reveals their interpretation while there is still time to adjust teaching or seek support.

This does not mean giving learners an answer to copy. The aim is to make the assessment expectation understandable while preserving the independent thinking required by the task.

How to apply the model in everyday work

You do not need to draw a diagram before every conversation. Use the model as a brief check when explaining something unfamiliar, handing over responsibility or correcting a misunderstanding.

Before communicating

Define the intended outcome. What should the other person know, decide or do? “Understand the new process” is less useful than “use the new form for requests submitted from Monday”.

Check assumed knowledge. Identify abbreviations, internal procedures and terms that may need explanation. Ask about relevant experience rather than guessing from someone’s role or confidence.

Choose an accessible format. A demonstration may help with a practical task; a written checklist may support later recall. Consider communication preferences and any adjustments needed.

During the exchange

Give enough context. Explain the purpose, action, timing and responsibility. Plain language is not simplistic language. It makes necessary detail easier to use. The Government Digital Service’s guidance on writing for GOV.UK offers practical advice on clear, user-focused wording.

Ask for meaningful feedback. Try “What will you do first?” or “Which part needs more explanation?” For a practical skill, observing an attempt may reveal more than asking for a verbal summary.

Respond without blame. If the interpretation differs, investigate your explanation and the working conditions as well as the recipient’s knowledge.

After the exchange

Record important agreements. A short written summary can confirm ownership, deadlines and unresolved questions.

Check the outcome when appropriate. Understanding an instruction does not guarantee that someone has the time, authority, equipment or competence to carry it out.

Limitations and common misunderstandings

Schramm’s model is a useful thinking tool, not a guarantee of successful communication.

Feedback does not automatically mean understanding. A reply can itself be ambiguous. Even an accurate summary may need to be followed by practice or observation.

Understanding is not agreement. Someone may fully understand a proposal and reasonably disagree with it. More explanation will not necessarily resolve conflicting priorities or interests.

Communication is not always neat turn-taking. In meetings, people speak, gesture and react simultaneously. Transactional models give more attention to this ongoing mutual influence.

Power affects what people say. An apprentice may be less willing to challenge a manager than a peer. A feedback loop on paper does not create psychological safety in practice.

Fields of experience are not fixed categories. Avoid assuming that people with the same qualification, nationality or age share the same interpretation. Ask rather than stereotype.

Finally, not every workplace problem is a communication problem. Re-explaining a deadline will not resolve an unmanageable workload, conflicting instructions or a faulty system.

Summary and next step

Schramm’s model shifts attention from “I sent the message” to “What meaning did we establish?” Its most useful ideas are the influence of experience and the role of feedback in revealing interpretation.

For your next important instruction or learning activity, identify one assumption, explain one potentially unfamiliar term and ask for feedback that shows the intended next action. If understanding differs, adjust the explanation before treating the task as agreed.

Sources and further reading

• University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing: The communication process. Academic overview of communication models, feedback, noise and context. This is a modern teaching source, not Schramm’s original publication.
• Health and Safety Executive: Safety-critical communications. Workplace guidance on communication where misunderstandings can affect safety.
• Government Digital Service: Writing for GOV.UK. Practical guidance on plain English and writing around users’ needs.