A major problem in understanding a new theory is that rapid gains in popularity are accompanied by misconceptions and distortions (Valsiner, 1988). A developmental theorist, Lev Vygotsky, has rapidly become a much repeated name at all levels of educational psychology: theoretical, empirical, and pedagogical. And once again, inexplicable misstatements about the theorist's thinking are appearing. This article presents the author's comments on McVee, Dunsmore, and Gavelek's (2005) misstatements on Vygotsky's system of academic (scientific) concepts, and in their discussion of classroom interactions in which McVee et al. (2005) applied a four-quadrant diagram, which they stated was adapted from a model by Rom Harre (1983). The author points out that McVee, Dunsmore, and Gavelek (2005) seem to have missed passages relevant to their discussion of concepts and knowledge construction. She also points out that instead of making use of Vygotsky's principles of cultural development in discussing classroom-related events, McVee et al. (2005) elected to implement a four-quadrant diagram that has no relation to his theory. They missed a unique opportunity to apply major threads in his work--concept formation, self-mastery and higher psychological functions, and the pivotal role of mastering the culture's tools of thinking--to schema theory. (Contains 2 notes.)