When I first started out, I fixated on the camera settings. It helps to a degree - if I wanted to recreate a panning shot of a racing car, it helps to have an idea of shutter speed. Ditto if it's a long exposure shot of some waves. It can show the focal length. Sometimes the EXIF shows whether the camera was in manual mode or Av/Tv/P, as well as the lens and camera combo. Each time I've looked at a photo and then the EXIF, I try to work out how those settings affected the image and whether I could have recreated the image.
What the EXIF doesn't show is the rationale for the settings. Why did the photographer choose f/11 instead of f/8 or f/16? Why 3 seconds instead of 2 or 4? Did they try different settings and pick the right one? Did they instinctively know? Even then, this is focussing on the technical details.
As
@Phil V pointed out, the technical settings don't matter so much as the composition and light. I've stopped looking at EXIF details mostly and looked at just the image. Why put the bird to the right instead of the left? Why is the horizon in the bottom and not the top? Why do I like this image instead of that one?
It's taking me a long time to piece together and that's partly due to the limited time I have to take photos and to look at images. Photography is less science and more art. I've started likening it to cooking. You can eat an awesome cake and (with enough skill) work out what ingredients were used to make it different from a regular cake. The precise quantities of flour, eggs, sugar and other ingredients aren't necessary but you could make a similar product with judgement.