It's a very broad question- my opinion is that physics is a subject of two complementing sides, the conceptual side which is the light bulb going off in your head: when you understand a phenomenon beyond the words used to describe it, and the analytical side, using mathematics, logic, and derivations to come up with correct numerical answers or algebraic expressions.
When something won't stick, say a proof, for example, I will
write the proof in non-maths language. A good example of this for me was always the orthogonality derivations. I'd repeat them for ages and never take them in, but then when I wrote down the steps, 1. multiply by a different function, 2. integrate, 3. use orthogonality, 4. ... I'd have a much better overview. So this would be an example of taking a conceptual viewpoint of what you originally thought was an analytic problem.
On the other hand, you may want to do the opposite. I'm currently working on understanding discrete Fourier transforms, which I am having trouble to learn from a textbook which only uses descriptive language and formal definitions to teach. I had a look on Youtube for some lectures on the subject, and the first result was a professor doing an example of the DFTs for a number of different functions, and using the maths to explicitly find the examples in the frequency domain, something I didn't really even consider when I initially started my reading!So my message is, physics is such a broad area that there is no one proven technique, but the advantage of this is that usually, every problem has more than one way of looking at it, and you may find one that suits you better if you bear this in mind!
Hope this helps,
(I thought I'd write a mini essay for my 2nd post!)
Michael