Leading educational journals abound with information addressing the vast scope of diversity among students to which educators must attend as they seek to construct an environment where all students have access to a guaranteed and viable curriculum (Chalker & Stelsel, 2009; Gasser & Palfrey, 2009; Weigel & Gardner, 2009). Diversity is a broad term that includes the range of cultural, ethnic, cognitive, and physical differences that represent students in United States public schools. Strict federal, state, and local laws add to the complexity of educating students with diverse needs and must be embraced as educators plan, implement, and assess learning activities (Cook, Tankersley, & Landrum, 2009; Parrish & Stodden, 2009). The increasing need for educators to attend to the scope of issues represented by such a diverse group of students provides the foundation for this paper. In it we will connect cognitive psychology, Mel Levine's All Kinds of Minds theoretical framework, and Universal Design for Learning within the constructionist paradigm demonstrating an integrated approach toward achieving an academic environment where all children can learn. For the purposes of this paper, the authors have narrowed the issue of diversity to focus on students with cognitive and physical differences as practical classroom applications of All Kinds of Minds and Universal Design for Learning are examined. The Constructionist Paradigm Constructionists believe that meaning, or truth, is not created but rather constructed by the individual (Crotty, 1998; Gall et al., 2007; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Social constructionists include the influence of culture, individual experiences, environments, cognitive abilities, and feelings of self-efficacy in the way an individual constructs meaning (Crotty; Gall et al.). They believe our individual view of the natural world is greatly influenced by the social world, the system of principles and ideals that are valued in the culture in which we have grown up and live (Crotty; Gall et al.; Strauss & Corbin). An example of the added social dimension in constructionism is demonstrated as one comes across the word plant. Objectivist theory would say that the individual would examine the plant and would know that it is a plant because we, as humans, have determined what the characteristics of a plant are and this object fits those objective characteristics. Constructionists recognize that humans have ascribed these characteristics to the plant and that there is a certain amount of subjectivity in ascribing characteristics. Social constructionists would say that the individual is influenced by past experiences with plants as well as by the culture and geographic region in which he lives as he describes or reflects on the ontology of a plant. For example, someone living in a city might envisage a different image when thinking of a plant than someone living in the country due to geography, education, and experience with plants. The urban dweller may view plants as being contained and/or something to add beauty to the home whereas the rural dweller could be a farmer and may view plants as a form of livelihood.