The problem how I see macroeconomics (and microeconomics) as taught these days, is that the concepts are often expounded in isolation from any particular context. For example, in mathematics, nobody talks about the philosophy or history of mathematics, or if they do, it’s usually done throught a sidenote. This is because mathematics is a purely deductive system, from premises to conclusion, so its philosophy or history is completely irrelevant to its proofs.
From a student’s point of view, the principles of economics seem to come out of nowhere ex nihilo, so the student is not aware, for example, how Keynesian Cross came about, or why markets should suddenly fail.
These concepts are based on hidden assumptions that are left unsaid in the textbooks.
To confound the situation, there seems to be no coherent linkage between Macroeconomics and Microeconomics, made worse when one topic contradicts the other, and students are not aware why that is.
From a historical perspective, the student should understand that economics is an ongoing debate, between various schools of thought. Every concept or model is a response to another school’s arguments throughout history, from the Physiocrats, to the Classicals, and then on to the Marginalist revolution, the Keynesian revolution, the rise of Monetarism, and so on.
My recommendation is to read about the History of Economic Thought, which in my opinion, every student in an economics curriculum should take as his or her first class. Here is a link for some recommendations: