I think that despite my great respect for Big Pistons, we're going to disagree on this. I also accept that BPF is probably thinking initial training, where I am talking advanced training, but... For me, the PLF is an exercise in handling the plane to a touchdown. I view the cause check as more an enroute training element. At some point, you're committed to a power off landing. It is at that point, the training to which I refer begins. I train practice forced landings to a touchdown. Of course, I set things up, so there's lots of room, and after the first "surprise", others will be repeated to the same spot. I find it allows the candidate to rejig their perception, and improve by iteration. I agree that the drill can be begun at altitude, and the cause check, and setting up the glide be the first element of the exercise, but sometimes a landing will be the result. However, in all cases I train this, it is to an already experienced pilot, as a part of type training. Aside from knowing the location and function of the secondary controls, the exercise is to accurately manage a rather different handling (usually drag) airplane to a successful touchdown.
I recall in particular, training a class one instructor to fly skis in a PA-18. This pilot, though very competent in a 172 on wheels, was really out of his element in the PA-18, and a revised idea of what would be a suitable landing site. Of course, I set him up with ample room, on a snowy lake I knew well, with many features of the surface and shore with which to judge. Lining everything up for his ease in the exercise, he mis judged so badly that he would have had to be touching down during base leg to make it work out - so we went around. I demonstrated from the same position, stated my touchdown point from crossing overhead at 800 feet, and landed where I said I would. From the front I heard: "Can I try that?". I told him that not only could he try it, he was not going solo until he could repeat it. After an hour, he could. Similarly, training a 200 hour pilot in a 182 amphibian, which glides rather steeply. I really did want to send him solo, but I needed to know that if it quit, he could get it down safely - and he knew he had the confidence to do it.
I find that too many pilots rely on the use of power to modulate the final stage of approach and flare. The difference in how quickly a plane will slow to stalling speed, when power is not available is important to know. If I thought that all pilots were being trained power off landings from mid final, I'd be content. But too many are carrying power into a protracted flare, and I just do not know that they can manage to get the plane safely on, with much less time available to refine the landing from ten feet up. So, for me, it's power off from a close mid downwind, tell me your selected touchdown point, and then do it.
A background aspect of my assertion of the importance of actually touching down out of the exercise, is the fact that though I am a licensed helicopter pilot, with experience on a number of types, I have never flown a "full on" autorotation from altitude - apparently insurance does not allow it in training. I've pulled into the flare in the auto many times, but only ever power recovered (which I think is even more challenging - changing horses mid stream!). Instructors assure me that I would have made it, but I do not have the confidence from having done it myself. I don't want a real emergency to be the first time!
For some of my less aviation familiar passengers, on a nice day, I'll often very slowly and gently pull the power to idle, and gently glide all the way to touchdown. On the ground (or in final, depending upon the person) I'll say "by the way, if the engine had stopped, this is exactly what it would be like" (if there's disbelief, I'll make a show of turning the mags off for a moment). People seem to appreciate understanding that a power off landing is not the end of the world - so pilots should understand this too.