This study used peer-reviewed published research reports to teach a seminar on learning and memory to first-semester college students. Complete reports (not summaries, reviews, or news reports) were re-written by this author to be more "student friendly" to college freshmen. These adapted published research reports (APRRs) retained original structure and key data but omitted references and tangential data while providing explanatory notes. Rather than lecturing the students about the papers, the approach was to engage students directly in scientific thinking by requiring them to work first individually and then as analysis teams to conduct a simulated peer review of the APRRs. To prod higher-level analysis, students were required to develop insightful answers to 21 scaffolding questions. All questions required critical thinking, and seven specifically called for creative responses. The questions prompted the students to think deeply about alternative approaches for testing, organizing and presenting results, meaning of the results, and the broader implications of the research. An end-of-course survey revealed that students regarded the experience positively. Most believed they learned more than they would have from lectures, had more interest in the subject matter, were less intimidated by research reports, grew in ability to comprehend research, and felt pride in realizing they could think at this level. This application of APRR seems to be a useful and engaging way to teach in a freshman seminar. Lessons learned include the need to provide more advance explanation about the nature of research in the field and more professor feedback on the students' simulated peer reviews. But, the results do lend support to the claim of others that APRRs can teach the nature of scholarship better than textbooks.