This article presents the authors' response and clarifications to the comments of Margaret E. Gredler and of Karen A. Krasny, Mark Sadoski, and Allan Paivio on their article "Schema Theory Revisited." The authors first respond to Gredler's criticism contending that they "transmogrified" Harre's (1984) "ignominiously named...Vygotsky space" in applying it to the classroom-related, social origins of individual thinking. Gredler suggests that the authors "missed passages relevant to [the] discussion of concepts and knowledge construction" and rehearses Vygotsky's well-known distinction between everyday and scientific concepts. Unfortunately, she fails to acknowledge the broader context framing the authors' comments, nor does she acknowledge the ambivalence scholars have identified in Vygotsky's work. Then, the authors respond to Krasny, Sadoski, and Paivio who curiously refer to them as holding Kantian a priori, essentialist conceptions, whereas the authors' thinking resonates more closely with that of Bartlett, who emphasized the social and cultural dimensions; and with Piaget, who emphasized the embodied nature of schema development.