Technical Writing at Work

Technical Writing at Work

Steven Schultz
Writing at Work, Inc.
Short Course #121

Length: 1 Day Course

Date: 03/07/2017 – Tuesday

Fee: $575 ($775 after 2/18/17)

More Course Info

Be sure to check out Steve’s other Short Course:

Target Audience

Well suited for jobs that require writing reports, manuals, methods, SOPs, specifications as well as product descriptions, web features, and journal articles. Also applicable to careers in research, sales and marketing, customer service, QA/QC, compliance—and those that rely on a clear exchange of technical ideas and information—at any job and level.

Course Description

Sharpen your overall writing skills and focus on the special demands of scientific and technical writing, such as objectively summarizing results and providing clear instructions in methods, SOPs, and everyday writing tasks. Participants learn how to write for specialized and general audiences, state technical concepts and information in simple direct English, and tackle the main obstacles that confront all writers: unclear objectives, imprecise descriptions, wordiness, and inefficient organization. This fast-paced, interactive, and highly rated course offers practical tips for direct application to writing projects—illustrated with real, on-the-job writing samples from a range of scientific professions.

Read Article on this Featured Course

Read Steve’s article on Language and Quality Control (or, Sonicate Until the Cockroaches Disappear) that appeared in the Analytical Scientist.


Past Course Reviews

“Emphasized simplicity without losing intelligence.”

“Great instructor with well-presented material—showed me how to be very descriptive without needing to be wordy.”

“Instructor was entertaining and used practical examples—similar to the material I work with regularly. It will be easier to apply the lessons from class.”

“A lot of participant discussion—instructor has great interaction with the audience.”

“Impressed with the instructor’s knowledge and his humor.”

“Clearly explained ideas—topics and group exercises were dead on.”