When using/implementing the Patterns of Thinking into my instruction, I have found that it's... well... it's difficult. The patterns themselves are not difficult to understand, and they're not difficult to apply to many lessons when I am sitting with my colleagues for a brainstorming session. What is difficult is getting the patterns to be part of my own schema, so that I automatically turn to them when planning lessons.
The systems pattern is an easy one (at least I think so). Parts make up wholes, and those wholes are parts that make up bigger wholes. I have found using this language with kindergarteners quite easy. "Yes! I can do this!" I never really got any further than "parts."
I felt like my white-belt was a sham. Like maybe I should have only been rewarded a white bracelet.
Then, when quickly throwing together and on-the-fly lesson (come on, you know you do it too) about past and present, the distinctions pattern popped into my head. We ran with it. Honestly, the beginning was rocky, but my kids don't hear "what is, and what is not" as often as they hear "what are the parts of..." Once we got rolling, I think they got it. Now I'll spend some time working distinctions into my language. Up next, relationships. Or maybe perspective. Both seem daunting for me and my 5 year olds.