While exploration of personal movement is a basic principle, at the same time if a student does not figure something out or if he does something wrong, he has to be shown. When a teacher demonstrates the drill, he certainly shows a set of basic techniques, derived from principles but still a set of things that a new student can emulate. So, I think that showing kids what the goal of the drill is, it does give them something to emulate. This is not necessarily bad or against the exploring principle: they can work from there and be encouraged if they do something not shown and that may work
That's a really well balanced approach.
I have a much narrower view. I don't believe there is a right or wrong result in exploring movement as a problem-solving exercise. The leverages and intuitive physics of movement are specific to the individual, and therein lies the danger of emulation becoming a paradigm instead of an example. IME, keeping the goal hidden from the drill is best. It lets people be free and easy, natural and spontaneous. It's letting them do what they know best. But when that innate knowledge is undermined or corrupted, it's hard to maintain the integrity of the trust one must have in themself to navigate such an abstract approach to developing sound personal combat.
Something RobP2 wrote really rings true:
There is an interesting theory that under reall pressure people flip back to an earlier age when they experienced similar pressure. Perhaps that's why sometimes even highyl trained people revert to "playground punching". In that sense there is maybe not such a big distinction between kids and adults. The difference is adults like to do something deadly serious, in which they are learning important stuff, where kids just roll around and play fight. We tend to pick up all sorts of inhibitions as we "grow up" whichi take us away from that free movement, then spend years trying to get it back through non-free movement
heh