IMO the foundation would be that you learn how each element (shutter speed, aperture, ISO) affects the image - not just light and dark, but depth of field, motion and noise.
You learn that many combinations of those three elements give you exactly the same
exposure* and you learn what happens when you only change one of the elements (exposure compensation). You also learn how your camera measures light and dark and why it suggests, or selects, certain settings.
Someone with a foundation of exposure knowledge would not ask "What settings should I used for xxx" unless it is a relatively unusual occasion (eclipse, northern lights, night sports) and would never wonder why their photos were blurry (if the problem was motion, either by the photographer or the subject). There would be no need to ask how to get a background to go out of focus, or the opposite - why the background is
not sharp.
*learn what a "stop" is:
https://photographylife.com/what-are-exposure-stops-in-photography
btw, I still find it odd when someone says, "Your shutter speed is too slow to capture a bird in flight;
raise your ISO." To me that's like saying, If your home is too hot with the furnace set at 78, open the window
If shutter speed is too slow for a subject, you
increase the shutter speed and then work out the rest of the exposure (or let the camera do it if in shutter priority). Maybe 'cause I was raised on film where the was no "changing ISO" (yeah OK, except for push processing)?
IMO the foundation would be that you learn how eac... (