Active learning has been shown in hundreds of studies to be superior to traditional lecture-based instruction. Here's a recent meta-analysis: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/05/lectures-arent-just-b... http://www.pnas.org/content/111/23/8410
And you don't need to learn from lecture 'first' to 'prepare' you for subsequent group learning or real-world learning. In fact, the opposite has been shown in research studies. Let students get their hands dirty with some field experience or try out a simulation even though they aren't quite ready for it yet or try to figure out some data, etc., and then when they receive a lecture on a related topic afterward, they will learn much more from it, because they can relate it back to their previous experience. They have a reason to listen to the lecture, rather than just trying to listen and memorize for a some future test or experience they know or care little about. Several studies have compared for example giving a lecture first followed by a simulation or other experience, vs. the other way around. And lecture-first is always inferior. See for example research on productive failure. Here are some examples: http://ideas.time.com/2012/04/25/why-floundering-is-good/ https://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2016/04/19/how-productive-fai... https://bulletproofmusician.com/productive-failure-how-strat... http://manukapur.com/productive-failure/