I have to agree with ColinsMum-- but that is an outlook which, pedagogically speaking, is most common in math and physical science, and quite rare elsewhere.
I have hypothesized that this is because those disciplines must, almost by definition, rely so thoroughly on a growth-mindset or a "problem-solving" one. It's about examining the problem and considering which tools one has available, and ultimately, considering and rejecting different approaches to that problem.
Other things are about turning the crank, in the euphemism frequently used by physicists and chemists re: learning a new tool. It's useful educationally, but generally ONLY unto basic proficiency. More useful is the examination of a problem which one LACKS the tools to solve adequately, elegantly, or easily.
Example: it is
entirely possible and mostly adequate to approach Newtonian physics from an algebraic and iterative standpoint. 50 years ago, perhaps not so much as now, actually, given advances in computing power. But it will
always lack the sheer accuracy and elegance of using calculus to do the job.
Really, calculus seems so much more...
useful once you've considered what it takes to work problems without it.
Cultivating such an outlook early seems especially wise.
Personally, curricula which neglect this kind of pedagogy have all but killed my DD's avid learning of mathematics. It's one of the things that I've loved about Singapore's basic approach over Saxon and other curricula like it. Growth mindset. Not fixed.
