本研究旨在探討校園公共藝術符號互動表徵、校園公共藝術符號之影響的現況及其關係，並據以提出結論與建議，期能提供學校運用符號互動表徵，增進公共藝術影響的參考。本研究採取文件分析、問卷調查、觀察法、訪談法進行研究，首先蒐集相關文獻，探討校園公共藝術及符號互動的相關理論；透過文件分析我國2005、2006、2007校園公共藝術設置案計136件，歸納出校園公共藝術符號互動表徵，包含：器物符號、操作符號、構念符號等三層面。另就校園公共藝術符號之影響進行探討，包含：提升校園環境品質、呈現學校品牌形象、涵養學生美學素養、促進公共關係發展、強化溝通協調功能等五層面。再利用問卷調查學校成員與校園公共藝術符號的互動及影響現況資料，將實徵資料進行統計分析，針對研究目的與問題發展訪談提綱，針對個案研究學校進行觀察與訪談，最後綜合研究發現做成結論，並提出具體建議。 本研究之問卷對象為臺北市、臺北縣、宜蘭縣2005、2006、2007國民中、小學校園公共藝術設置學校計35所之師生，抽樣調查765位，取得有效樣本706份，調查結果以平均數、標準差、t考驗、單因子變異係數分析、回歸分析等統計方法，進行資料處理分析，獲致以下結論： 一、學校師生與校園公共藝術符號表徵的互動現況以「器物符號」最顯見，其次為「構念符號」，再其次為「操作符號」。 二、學校師生受到校園公共藝術符號的影響現況，依序為：「提升校園環境品質」、「涵養學生美學素養」、「呈現學校品牌形象」、「促進公共關係發展」、「強化溝通協調功能」。 三、學校師生與校園公共藝術符號表徵之互動在學校區域、服務年資、教育程度、現任職務上具有差異。 四、學校師生受到校園公共藝術符號之影響在學校區域、性別、服務年資、教育程度、現任職務、就讀年級上具有差異。 五、校園公共藝術符號表徵與校園公共藝術符號之影響各層面均呈現正相關。其中「操作符號」與「強化溝通協調功能」相關程度最高；其次為「操作符號」與「提升校園環境品質」；最低者為「器物符號」與「涵養學生美學素養」。 六、「操作符號」對整體校園公共藝術符號之影響的預測力最佳。 七、個案學校師生普遍認同校園公共藝術符號互動各層面之表徵。 八、個案學校師生對於校園公共藝術符號之影響，因符號互動表徵不同而有差異。 根據結論，提出以下建議，供作學校未來設置公共藝術，能有效運用符號互動表徵，來強化公共藝術的影響之參考。 壹、對學校之建議： 一、運用符號互動表徵，強化公共藝術影響 二、善用公共藝術經費，涵養學生美學素養 三、落實公共藝術教育，提升校園環境品質 四、活用操作符號表徵，增進溝通協調功能 五、行銷校園公共藝術，建立學校公共關係 六、設計校園建築符號，營造學校品牌形象 貳、對教師之建議： 一、參與校園公共藝術，增進專業對話溝通 二、發展公共藝術課程，陶冶師生藝術生活 三、經驗傳承研習進修，兼任行政專業成長 / This study explored the status and relations between the characterization of campus public art symbolic interaction and the influence of campus public art symbol, and then to propose conclusions and recommendations provided for school to apply the characterization of symbolic interaction and refer to strengthen the influence of the public art. The researcher adopted document analysis, questionnaires, observation, and interview research in the study. The research was begun to collect the related documents and then probe related theories of the campus public art and the symbolic interaction. Through document analysis of 136 campus public art cases, from 2005 to 2007, inducted three levels of the characterization of campus public art symbolic interaction, including: objects symbols, operation symbols, and construct symbols. On the other hand, to explore the influence of the campus public art, including: enhancing the quality of campus environment, conserving students’ aesthetic literacy ", showing the school brand image, promoting the development of public relations, and strengthening the function of communication and coordination of the five dimensions. Further, to survey the interaction and status of the members of the school and the campus public art signs by questionnaires, the researcher proceeded with the statistical analysis of the empirical data to develop the interview outline related to the study purposes , interview and observe the case study schools .According to the comprehensive findings , the study showed the specific recommendations . From 2005 to 2007, there are 35 schools that are from the national primary and secondary schools of public art in Taipei City, Taipei County, Ilan County in this study questionnaire. There are 765 subjects who were surveyed altogether and 706 valid samples were acquired. The statistical methods of the research include mean, standard deviation, t test, one-way anova , regression analysis and other statistical methods, data processing and analysis. The summary of the research findings are as followings: 1. The symbolic objects is the "most obvious" ，followed by "construct symbols “, and then followed by "operational symbols" in the interactive status of the symbolic representation between the teachers and students and the campus public art. 2. Teachers and students in school by campus public art symbols were to: " enhance the quality of campus environment," "conserve students’ aesthetic literacy ", "show the school brand image", "promote the development of public relations", "strengthen the function of communication and coordination" 3. Between the teachers and students and the campus public art are the differences in the school district, years of service, education, and current position. 4. Teachers and students in school are affected by campus public art symbols with the differences in the school district, gender, years of service, education, current position, and school grade. 5. The symbolic representation of public art on campus and the campus public art signs at all levels showed a positive correlation. The “operation symbols” and to "strengthen communication and coordination functions," were the highest relevance; followed by “operation symbols” and "improving the quality of campus environment"; the lowest relevance for the "symbolic objects" and "conserving students’ aesthetic literacy." 6. "Operation symbols" on the public art of the overall campus can predict the best. 7. Teachers and students in case school generally agree that the public art at all levels of symbolic interaction representation. 8. Teachers and students in case school differ from the influence of the campus public art symbol. Based on the research finding, the following recommendations are made for school and teacher: Recommendations on school: 1. To use the characterization of the symbolic interaction, and strengthen the influence of the public art. 2. To make use of thee funds for public arts and conserve students’ aesthetic literacy. 3. To implement the public arts education, and improve the quality of the campus environment. 4. To utilize operation symbolic representation, and enhance the function of communication and coordination. 5. To market campus public art, and establish the school public relations. 6. To design the campus building signs, and create the school brand image. Suggestions for teachers: 1. To participate campus public art , and enhance communication and professional dialogue. 2. To develop public art programs, and refine teachers and students’ artistic life. 3. To inherit the experience of the studies education, and promote the administrative professional development.