Yeah, I've also found that the abstract approach is what pays the most dividends. When I taught electronics lab, the physics students would get wrapped up in trying to think from the point of view of fields and charges, which honestly isn't that helpful for electronics (unless, as mentioned above, you're doing device physics).
On the other hand, research (by the PhET folks in Colorado I believe) has shown that having students play with a Java applet beforehand (that shows electrons moving through wires) really helps their performance in a basic electronics lab activity. This would be measuring voltage, resistance, current. However it's likely that the sandbox nature of the applet is what helps, not so much the moving charge concept.
Possibly a confounding factor is that electricity is so incredibly badly taught in the high school and college physics courses, or at least it was when I was a student. Most students ended up hating electricity. I have had more than one person cite the "oscilloscope lab" as the experience that turned them away from physics.
It's too bad, because if well taught, electricity could really reinforce another aspect of physics that students struggle with, namely the ability to solve complex problems by replacing fields with scalar quantities (e.g., stuff that's conserved), thus replacing calculus with accounting.
Also, I would completely ditch the oscilloscope (at the intro level), replacing it with something that simply measures voltage versus time into a computer.
On the other hand, research (by the PhET folks in Colorado I believe) has shown that having students play with a Java applet beforehand (that shows electrons moving through wires) really helps their performance in a basic electronics lab activity. This would be measuring voltage, resistance, current. However it's likely that the sandbox nature of the applet is what helps, not so much the moving charge concept.