LLM Language Learning

Leveraging Large Language Models for Finnish Language Acquisition to Support Immigrant Integration: A Comprehensive Analysis

Summary
This report analyzes the potential and challenges of using Large Language Models (LLMs) to help immigrants learn Finnish within the Finntegrate project. Finnish is a complex and Less Commonly Taught Language (LCTL), making acquisition difficult. LLMs offer benefits like conversational practice, content generation, and personalized feedback. However, challenges include grammatical understanding, cultural nuances, and bias.

The report suggests leveraging Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) for Finnish-specific information and fine-tuning models. Key recommendations include prioritizing applications where LLMs excel (e.g., bureaucratic simulations), adopting a hybrid technical approach, basing the tool on pedagogical frameworks, ensuring ethical safeguards, and collaborating with Finnish language technology initiatives.

The document also covers the landscape of LLM-Assisted Language Learning (LLM-ALL), comparing commercial and open-source tools, and discussing academic research. It emphasizes tailoring LLMs to immigrant needs in Finland, including addressing Finnish complexity, simulating key interactions, integrating cultural context, and considering Finnish’s LCTL status. The report stresses the importance of pedagogical integration with scaffolding, personalization, and effective feedback, as well as technical implementation strategies like prompt engineering and bias mitigation.

1. Executive Summary

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the potential and challenges associated with using Large Language Models (LLMs) to assist immigrants in learning Finnish, thereby supporting their integration into Finnish society, particularly within the context of the Finntegrate project. Learning Finnish presents a significant hurdle due to its linguistic complexity and status as a Less Commonly Taught Language (LCTL). LLMs offer promising avenues for supplementing traditional language education through capabilities like conversational practice, content generation, and personalized feedback.

Current LLM-assisted language learning (LLM-ALL) tools, both commercial (e.g., Duolingo Max, Opeton, Mondly) and open-source, demonstrate effectiveness in areas such as vocabulary acquisition and providing interactive practice environments. However, they often exhibit limitations concerning deep grammatical understanding, pragmatic competence, cultural nuance, and inherent algorithmic biases stemming from training data predominantly focused on English and Western cultures. The unique grammatical structures of Finnish pose a specific challenge that requires tailored approaches.

Effective implementation necessitates grounding LLM tools in sound pedagogical principles, blending AI-driven practice with human guidance, and employing techniques like scaffolding and adaptive learning. Technical strategies such as Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) appear highly suitable for grounding LLMs in Finnish-specific information (e.g., bureaucratic procedures, cultural norms), while fine-tuning and advanced prompt engineering are crucial for tailoring model behavior for instructional purposes.

Ethical considerations are paramount, especially regarding data privacy under GDPR and mitigating biases that could disproportionately affect vulnerable immigrant populations. Ensuring accessibility for users with varying digital literacy levels is also critical. Future trends like multimodal and agentic AI present further opportunities, but significant gaps remain in creating pedagogically robust, culturally attuned, and Finnish-specific LLM-ALL solutions.

Key recommendations for the Finntegrate project include:

1. Prioritizing applications where LLMs excel, such as simulating bureaucratic interviews (e.g., Migri) and teaching domain-specific vocabulary relevant to integration.
2. Adopting a hybrid technical approach, likely leveraging RAG to ensure factual accuracy and cultural relevance, potentially combined with fine-tuning for specific linguistic or pedagogical goals.
3. Designing the tool based on established pedagogical frameworks, emphasizing interaction, scaffolding, and meaningful feedback, rather than relying solely on unguided AI conversation.
4. Implementing stringent ethical safeguards, focusing on data privacy (GDPR compliance, potentially using open-source/local models) and proactive bias mitigation.
5. Ensuring the tool is highly accessible and user-friendly, considering the diverse digital literacy levels of the target population.
6. Collaborating with existing Finnish language technology initiatives to leverage resources and expertise specific to this LCTL.

2. Introduction

2.1 The Challenge: Finnish Language and Immigrant Integration

Successful integration into a new society is a multifaceted process, heavily reliant on the ability to communicate effectively. For immigrants arriving in Finland, the Finnish language often presents a formidable barrier. Finnish belongs to the Uralic language family, making it linguistically distant from the Indo-European languages spoken by many immigrants. Its complex morphology, including extensive case systems and agglutination, vowel harmony, and unique vocabulary, contribute to its reputation as a difficult language to acquire, particularly for adult learners. This linguistic isolation means fewer readily available learning resources compared to more widely spoken languages, classifying Finnish as a Less Commonly Taught Language (LCTL).

Proficiency in Finnish is not merely an academic pursuit; it is intrinsically linked to successful integration. Navigating essential bureaucratic processes, such as interviews with the Finnish Immigration Service (Migri), understanding official forms from Kela (Social Insurance Institution) or TE Offices (Employment and Economic Development Office), requires specific linguistic competence. Furthermore, language skills are crucial for social interaction, cultural understanding, accessing healthcare, participating in community life, and securing employment, which is a key metric in Finnish integration policy. The lack of language proficiency can lead to social exclusion, hinder economic self-sufficiency, and impede access to essential services.

2.2 The Opportunity: Large Language Models in Language Learning

Recent advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly the development of Large Language Models (LLMs), offer a potential technological pathway to augment traditional language learning approaches. LLMs, trained on vast amounts of text data, exhibit remarkable capabilities in understanding, generating, and interacting through natural language. Their application in education, known as LLM-assisted language learning (LLM-ALL), is a rapidly growing field. LLMs can potentially serve as interactive tutors, provide personalized feedback, generate tailored learning materials, and simulate real-world conversations, offering scalable and accessible practice opportunities.

2.3 Project Context: The Finntegrate Initiative

The Finntegrate project aims to develop resources and support systems to facilitate the successful integration of immigrants in Finland. Recognizing the critical role of language proficiency, the project seeks to explore how LLM technology can be effectively harnessed to address the specific challenges of learning Finnish within the integration context. This report serves as a foundational document for Finntegrate, providing a comprehensive analysis of the current state, potential, and practicalities of using LLMs for Finnish language acquisition among immigrants.

2.4 Scope and Structure

This report conducts a thorough literature review and analysis covering:

• The current landscape of LLM-ALL, including methodologies, commercial tools, open-source options, and academic research (Section 3).
• Specific applications of LLMs tailored to the linguistic needs of immigrants in Finland, focusing on Finnish language complexity, bureaucratic/social/workplace communication, interaction simulation, cultural integration, and LCTL considerations (Section 4).
• Pedagogical frameworks for integrating LLMs effectively, including evidence-based practices, scaffolding, personalization, adaptive learning, and feedback mechanisms (Section 5).
• Technical implementation strategies, such as architectural choices (including RAG), prompt engineering, ensuring cultural authenticity, mitigating bias, and measuring learner progress (Section 6).
• Critical ethical and practical considerations, including data privacy (GDPR), algorithmic bias, LLM limitations, accessibility, and digital literacy (Section 7).
• Future directions, emerging trends, and specific opportunities for the Finntegrate project (Section 8).
• Tailored recommendations and potential implementation pathways for Finntegrate (Section 9).

The analysis aims to provide Finntegrate with the necessary insights to make informed decisions regarding the potential development and deployment of LLM-based language learning tools.

3. The Landscape of LLM-Assisted Language Learning (LLM-ALL)

The application of Large Language Models (LLMs) to language learning is a dynamic and rapidly expanding field, building upon decades of research in Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL). LLMs offer new possibilities for interaction, content generation, and personalization, leading to the development of novel methodologies and tools. This section surveys the current state, analyzes prominent commercial and open-source approaches, and reviews academic perspectives on the effectiveness of LLM-ALL.

3.1 Current State: Methodologies, Technologies, and Tools

LLMs are being integrated into language learning through various methodologies, leveraging their core capabilities:

• Conversational Practice: Perhaps the most prominent application is using LLMs as interactive dialogue partners or tutors. This allows learners to practice speaking and listening skills in simulated real-world scenarios, potentially reducing the anxiety associated with practicing with humans.
• Content Generation: LLMs excel at generating text, which can be harnessed to create a wide range of learning materials, including grammar explanations, vocabulary lists, reading passages, comprehension questions, dialogues for practice, and customized exercises tailored to specific proficiency levels or topics.
• Feedback and Correction: LLMs can analyze learner input (text or transcribed speech) to provide feedback on grammar, syntax, vocabulary usage, and potentially pronunciation. This feedback can be delivered in real-time, allowing for immediate correction and reinforcement.
• Personalization and Adaptation: A key promise of AI in education is the ability to tailor the learning experience to individual needs. LLMs can analyze learner performance and interactions to adjust content difficulty, suggest relevant topics, and create personalized learning paths.

Commercial Applications Analysis

Several commercial language learning platforms have integrated LLM features, offering insights into current capabilities and market directions.

• Duolingo Max: This premium tier utilizes OpenAI’s GPT-4 to power features like “Explain My Answer” (providing explanations for correct/incorrect responses) and “Roleplay” (simulating conversations in various scenarios). It also includes an AI-powered “Video Call” feature for conversational practice. While users find these features helpful for reinforcing learning and practicing recall, critiques suggest the roleplay conversations can be brief and superficial, and the AI explanations are sometimes unhelpful or fail to address the specific point of confusion. Duolingo states it uses user data to tailor lessons but maintains privacy. Currently, Max features support major European languages but not explicitly Finnish for all features.
• Opeton: Specifically targeting conversational fluency, Opeton provides an AI tutor that users interact with via voice calls. It is designed for learners who have moved beyond the absolute beginner stage. Opeton claims its AI analyzes conversations to adapt topics and difficulty levels dynamically.1 Finnish is a supported language.3 The platform leverages AI for personalized exercises, real-time feedback, and pronunciation assistance.2 User feedback available on app stores indicates perceived improvement in Finnish speaking skills but also requests for enhanced features like grammatical explanations within the app and better audio feedback mechanisms. Opeton operates on a subscription model and mentions adherence to privacy policies.
• Mondly: Acquired by Pearson, Mondly offers courses in 41 languages, employing a gamified approach with short daily lessons. Its AI features include a chatbot for conversation practice and integration with Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR) for more immersive experiences. It uses speech recognition for pronunciation feedback and aims to provide personalized learning paths. While praised for its interactive format and practical vocabulary, some users find it repetitive or the interface clunky. Its “Digital Language Tutor” (DLT) uses AI for personalized practice and feedback, particularly for workplace scenarios.
• Other Tools: The market includes numerous other apps incorporating AI, such as Babbel (AI-driven lessons, instant feedback), Talkpal (AI tutor, roleplays, real-time feedback), Univerbal (AI conversation practice), Memrise (AI MemBot for feedback, native speaker videos), HelloTalk (AI for matching native speaker partners), and Busuu (AI corrections, real-life scenarios). These tools generally focus on conversational practice, vocabulary building, and providing automated feedback.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Selected Commercial LLM-ALL Tools

Tool Name	Key AI Features	Underlying LLM (if known)	Finnish Support	Pedagogical Approach Claimed	Reported Strengths	Reported Limitations	Pricing Model
Duolingo Max	Explain My Answer, Roleplay, Video Call	GPT-4	Limited/Partial	Interactive, Gamified	Reinforces learning, recall practice	Shallow conversations, sometimes unhelpful explanations	Subscription
Opeton	AI Tutor Calls, Adaptive Topics/Difficulty	Not Specified	Yes	Conversational Fluency	Good for Finnish practice, safe environment	Needs more grammar support, better audio feedback	Subscription
Mondly	AI Chatbot, AR/VR Integration, Speech Recognition	Not Specified	Yes	Gamified, Interactive, Immersive	Fun, practical vocabulary, AR/VR features, lesson recaps	Can be repetitive, clunky interface, VR requires separate app/hardware	Subscription
Talkpal	AI Tutor, Roleplays, Debates, Pronunciation Feedback	GPT-powered	Yes	Conversational, Adaptive	Realistic practice, instant feedback, personalization	Requires subscription for full features	Freemium/Subscr.
Memrise	MemBot (AI feedback), Native Speaker Videos	Not Specified	Yes	Spaced Repetition, Authentic Input	Real-world context, speaking practice	Focus primarily on vocabulary/phrases	Freemium/Subscr.

Open-Source Projects and Frameworks

The open-source ecosystem offers crucial alternatives, providing transparency, customization potential, and the ability to host models locally, which can alleviate privacy concerns and reduce reliance on costly APIs. However, leveraging open-source requires considerable technical expertise and resources for development, fine-tuning, and deployment.

Key frameworks and libraries underpinning many LLM applications include:

• Model Hubs & Core Libraries: Hugging Face Transformers is central, providing access to numerous pre-trained models and tools for fine-tuning. TensorFlow and PyTorch are the foundational deep learning libraries.
• Fine-tuning & Training: Libraries like Torchtune, Unsloth, Megatron-LM, and Deepspeed offer specialized tools for efficient model training and fine-tuning. FATE-LLM focuses on federated learning approaches.
• Application Development & Orchestration: Frameworks like LangChain, LlamaIndex, Semantic Kernel, and SGLang (for serving) simplify the process of building complex LLM applications, often integrating retrieval mechanisms (RAG) and agentic workflows. Agenta and Langtrace focus on LLMOps (evaluation, monitoring).
• Base Models: Popular open-source models frequently used as foundations include the Llama family (Llama 2, Llama 3, Llama 3.1), Mistral models, Gemma, Phi, DeepSeek models, and multilingual models like BLOOM. Many others exist, often fine-tuned versions of these base models.

Specific open-source projects relevant to language tutoring include the AI Language Tutor 4, Companion 5, languageXchange, and Llama Tutor. Frameworks like KnowLM 6 focus on integrating external knowledge, which could be relevant for domain-specific language learning. Collections like Awesome-LLM and Awesome-LLMOps provide curated lists of resources.

Table 2: Overview of Selected Open-Source LLM Frameworks/Models Relevant to LLM-ALL

Framework/Model Name	Key Features/Purpose	License	Suitability for LLM-ALL Development	Key Snippets
Hugging Face Transformers	Model hub, pre-trained models, fine-tuning tools, tokenizers	Apache 2.0	Foundational library for accessing models and basic fine-tuning; high flexibility
PyTorch / TensorFlow	Core deep learning libraries	BSD-style / Apache 2.0	Essential for custom model development or deep modification; steep learning curve
LangChain / LlamaIndex	Application development frameworks, RAG orchestration, agent creation	MIT / MIT	Simplify building complex applications (e.g., RAG-based tutors, agentic systems); rapid prototyping
Llama 3 / Llama 3.1	High-performance base LLMs (various sizes)	Custom (Commercial OK)	Strong foundation models for fine-tuning; good performance/size trade-offs; permissive license
Mistral Models (e.g., 7B)	Efficient and capable base LLMs	Apache 2.0	Good balance of performance and efficiency, suitable for local deployment; open license
FATE-LLM	Federated learning framework for LLMs	Apache 2.0	Addresses privacy concerns by training without centralizing data; complex setup
RAG Frameworks (General)	Combining retrieval with generation for contextual accuracy	Varies (depends on components)	Crucial for grounding responses in specific/current data (e.g., Finnish laws, culture)
PEFT Libraries (e.g., LoRA)	Efficient fine-tuning techniques (adapting fewer parameters)	Apache 2.0 (for HF PEFT)	Reduces computational cost of fine-tuning, making customization more accessible

3.2 Academic Perspectives: Research Trends and Effectiveness Evidence

The academic community is actively investigating the role and efficacy of LLMs in education and language acquisition specifically. The volume of research is increasing dramatically, spurred by the release and accessibility of models like ChatGPT.

Evidence suggests LLMs can be effective for certain aspects of language learning:

• Vocabulary Acquisition: Studies confirm significant benefits, including improved long-term retention of productive vocabulary and facilitating incidental learning through conversational interaction.
• Writing Support: LLMs show potential for assessing writing accuracy and providing automated feedback. They can generate coherent text, assist with summarization, and correct grammatical errors. However, the quality of feedback is variable and often requires human refinement.
• Speaking and Pronunciation: AI tools, often incorporating LLMs and speech recognition, provide platforms for oral practice and pronunciation feedback. Research supports the pedagogical value of language production (speaking/writing) coupled with feedback.
• Proficiency Assessment: LLMs demonstrate promise in automatically assessing L2 proficiency levels, even for a language like Finnish using ASR transcripts. Techniques like soft labeling, which utilizes the model’s confidence scores across different levels, can enhance assessment accuracy compared to simply choosing the most likely level.

Despite these promising findings, academic research also highlights significant limitations and concerns:

• Pedagogical Soundness: A major critique is that many current LLM applications are not sufficiently grounded in established educational theories or methodologies. LLMs might default to providing direct answers rather than scaffolding the learning process, which is contrary to best practices in tutoring. Aligning LLMs with pedagogical principles is an active research challenge.
• Pragmatics and Cultural Nuance: LLMs often struggle to grasp and generate language that is pragmatically appropriate (considering context, politeness, implied meaning) and culturally nuanced. Their outputs frequently reflect the cultural biases inherent in their predominantly English-language training data. Assessing and improving pragmatic competence is an ongoing research focus.
• Cognitive vs. Functional Similarity: While LLMs can mimic human language output effectively, their underlying mechanisms are fundamentally different from human cognition and language acquisition. LLMs learn statistical patterns from massive text datasets, whereas humans learn through multimodal sensory input, social interaction, and embodied experience. This difference limits the extent to which LLM performance can inform theories of human language acquisition or serve as a perfect analogue for human interlocutors.
• Impact on Learning: Concerns persist regarding potential negative impacts, such as over-reliance hindering the development of critical thinking and deep understanding. Some empirical evidence suggests a negative correlation between reliance on LLMs for complex tasks (like code generation) and academic performance.
• Evaluation Difficulties: Reliably evaluating LLM capabilities is challenging. Performance is highly sensitive to prompt variations. Existing benchmarks often lack linguistic and cultural diversity, frequently relying on translations from English, which may not capture language-specific nuances. There is a need for more robust, culturally authentic, and pedagogically informed evaluation frameworks and metrics.

3.3 Implications for Finntegrate

The current LLM-ALL landscape presents both opportunities and challenges for the Finntegrate project. The rapid development offers powerful tools, but their effective and ethical application, especially for a complex LCTL like Finnish and a vulnerable user group like immigrants, requires careful consideration.

Commercial tools provide readily available interfaces and features like conversational practice and basic feedback. However, their pedagogical depth may be limited, and their suitability for the specific grammatical and cultural nuances of Finnish integration contexts is uncertain. Off-the-shelf solutions might not adequately address the need for understanding bureaucratic language or simulating high-stakes interactions like Migri interviews.

Open-source models and frameworks offer greater flexibility for customization and control, particularly regarding data privacy and tailoring content to Finnish needs. However, this path demands significant investment in technical expertise, data curation (especially high-quality Finnish data), model fine-tuning, and ongoing maintenance. The feasibility depends heavily on Finntegrate’s resources and technical capacity.

Academic research validates the use of LLMs for specific skill development like vocabulary and potentially proficiency assessment. Yet, it cautions against relying on current LLMs for deep grammatical understanding, nuanced pragmatic coaching, or culturally sensitive communication without significant adaptation and human oversight. The dominance of English in training data necessitates specific strategies (e.g., fine-tuning on Finnish data, RAG with Finnish resources) to ensure adequate performance and cultural appropriateness for the target users. Finntegrate must therefore approach LLM integration strategically, leveraging strengths while mitigating weaknesses through careful pedagogical design, technical adaptation, and ethical diligence.

4. Applying LLMs to Immigrant Language Needs in Finland

Integrating immigrants successfully requires addressing their specific language needs, which extend beyond general fluency to encompass navigating official procedures, engaging in social interactions, and participating in the workforce. LLMs offer potential tools to target these areas, but their application must consider the unique complexities of the Finnish language and the cultural context of Finland.

4.1 Tackling Finnish Language Complexity with LLMs

The Finnish language, with its agglutinative nature, complex case system, consonant gradation, vowel harmony, and distinct vocabulary, presents significant learning challenges. As an LCTL, high-quality learning resources are less abundant than for major world languages. LLMs could potentially assist in several ways:

• Grammar Explanation & Practice: LLMs can generate explanations of grammatical rules and create targeted exercises. However, the accuracy and pedagogical effectiveness of these explanations for complex Finnish grammar need careful verification, as LLMs might rely on pattern matching rather than deep linguistic understanding. Some pedagogical approaches, like conversational methods, may intentionally de-emphasize explicit grammar instruction. Research specifically on Finnish LLMs indicates ongoing development and challenges; even large commercial models make grammatical errors in Finnish.
• Vocabulary Acquisition: This is an area where LLMs show strong potential. They can be used to create flashcards, provide contextual examples of word usage, and implement spaced repetition systems to aid memorization. This is particularly valuable for the large vocabulary load often associated with Finnish.
• Pronunciation Feedback: By integrating with Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) technology, LLM-based systems can offer feedback on pronunciation, intonation, and fluency. The effectiveness of current ASR and feedback mechanisms for the specific phonetics of Finnish requires evaluation.

Studies focusing on Finnish LLMs, such as the Poro models developed using the LUMI supercomputer, show that dedicated efforts are underway. These studies suggest that fine-tuning multilingual models on Finnish data, sometimes mixed with English data, can yield competitive results. However, the quality of the training data is paramount, and significant issues have been found in web-scraped Finnish data. LLMs have also shown promise for automatically assessing Finnish L2 spoken proficiency at levels comparable to human raters.

4.2 LLMs for Bureaucratic, Social, and Workplace Communication Needs

Language learning for integration extends beyond grammar and vocabulary to encompass communicative competence in specific contexts crucial for daily life and economic participation.

• Bureaucratic Language: Immigrants must interact with various authorities (Migri, Kela, TE Offices, municipalities) and understand official documents, forms, and procedures. LLMs could potentially be used to:
  • Simplify complex official language or jargon.
  • Explain procedures (e.g., applying for benefits, residence permit renewal).
  • Provide definitions of specific terms.
  • Assist in filling out forms by explaining fields or suggesting appropriate phrasing. This application demands extremely high accuracy and reliability. Grounding the LLM in verified, up-to-date official Finnish information using RAG is essential to avoid providing incorrect or misleading advice.
• Domain-Specific Vocabulary: Learning vocabulary relevant to specific domains like healthcare, education, or particular industries is vital for employment and accessing services. LLMs can be prompted or fine-tuned to focus on specific domains, potentially using techniques like vocabulary expansion to teach relevant terminology effectively.
• Social and Workplace Scenarios: LLMs can simulate everyday conversations encountered in social settings (e.g., cafes, shops, meeting neighbours) or the workplace (e.g., interacting with colleagues, understanding instructions, participating in meetings). This provides a safe space for learners to practice interaction patterns and gain confidence. The challenge lies in creating realistic, culturally appropriate dialogues that go beyond simple scripts.

4.3 Simulating Key Interactions (e.g., Migri Interviews, Social Scenarios)

Creating realistic simulations of critical interactions is a promising application for LLM-ALL in the integration context.

• Interview Simulation: AI-powered tools are already used for job interview preparation, offering features like realistic questions, scenario simulation, and even feedback on non-verbal cues (though the latter is likely beyond the scope of a text/speech-based LLM). This concept can be adapted for immigration-related interviews, such as those conducted by Migri or for visa applications. The US Department of Homeland Security is exploring using AI to simulate refugee interactions for training purposes. Success hinges on:
  • Realistic Scenario Design: Basing simulations on actual procedures and common question types.
  • Adaptive Questioning: Moving beyond static scripts to generate relevant follow-up questions based on learner responses.
  • Constructive Feedback: Providing feedback not just on language accuracy but potentially on clarity, relevance, and confidence, while handling sensitive topics appropriately.
• Social Scenario Simulation: Existing apps like Duolingo Max and Mondly offer basic role-playing features, and Opeton focuses on free-form conversation. However, users often desire more dynamic and less predictable interactions. LLMs could power more sophisticated simulations of Finnish social situations, requiring careful design to ensure cultural authenticity and avoid simplistic or stereotypical representations. Integration with VR/AR could further enhance immersion.

Technical approaches involve careful prompt engineering to set the scene and define roles, potentially using RAG to inject relevant contextual details, or fine-tuning models on specific types of dialogues.

4.4 Integrating Cultural Context and Pragmatic Competence

Effective communication in Finland, as anywhere, requires more than just grammatical accuracy and vocabulary. It demands understanding and navigating cultural norms and pragmatic conventions. This includes politeness strategies (e.g., use of conditional mood, specific address forms), appropriate register (formal vs. informal), turn-taking, understanding indirectness, and interpreting non-literal language. These skills are essential for successful integration into Finnish social and professional life.

LLMs, however, face significant challenges in this area:

• Cultural Bias: Trained primarily on English/Western data, LLMs often lack deep understanding of other cultures and may perpetuate stereotypes or impose dominant cultural norms. Their default responses may not reflect Finnish communication styles.
• Pragmatic Deficits: LLMs often struggle with interpreting implied meaning, context-dependent utterances, and the nuances of politeness or register. Evaluating and improving these pragmatic capabilities is an active area of research.

Strategies to integrate cultural and pragmatic learning include:

• Explicit Instruction: Using LLMs to generate explanations of Finnish cultural norms or pragmatic rules (e.g., levels of formality, common greetings), though the accuracy requires verification.
• Culturally Grounded Content: Fine-tuning models on authentic Finnish dialogues or using RAG to provide context from reliable sources on Finnish culture and communication practices.
• Scenario Design: Crafting simulation scenarios that specifically target challenging pragmatic or cultural situations in Finland.
• Cultural Prompting: Instructing the LLM to respond according to Finnish cultural norms. This has shown mixed results and can lead to inaccurate portrayals if the model lacks genuine understanding.
• Human Oversight: Collaboration with Finnish language teachers and cultural experts is crucial to ensure the authenticity and appropriateness of the content and feedback provided by the LLM.

4.5 Specific Considerations for Finnish as an LCTL

The status of Finnish as an LCTL introduces specific challenges and opportunities for LLM-ALL:

• Data Scarcity: Compared to high-resource languages, there is significantly less high-quality digital text and speech data available for Finnish. This directly impacts the training and performance of LLMs, making it harder to achieve high levels of fluency and accuracy without dedicated effort.
• Need for Specialized Materials: The traditional lack of tailored pedagogical materials for LCTLs makes the content generation capabilities of LLMs particularly attractive. However, generating accurate and pedagogically sound materials for a complex language like Finnish requires careful prompting and validation.
• Leveraging Existing Resources: Finntegrate should be aware of and potentially leverage existing Finnish NLP resources, such as the DigiTala speech corpus, Finnish-specific LLM projects like Poro, and university initiatives aimed at teaching Finnish to international students and staff.
• Collaboration: The LCTL context underscores the importance of collaboration and sharing resources. Contributing data or findings from the Finntegrate project back to the Finnish NLP community could foster a virtuous cycle.

4.6 Implications for Finntegrate

Applying LLMs effectively to the Finnish immigrant context requires moving beyond generic solutions. The specific linguistic challenges of Finnish, coupled with the need to teach language for bureaucratic, social, and workplace integration, strongly suggest that tailoring is essential. This likely involves using RAG to ground the LLM in reliable Finnish-specific information (e.g., Migri procedures, Kela guidelines, cultural etiquette guides) and potentially fine-tuning a base model on relevant Finnish language data or dialogues to improve linguistic accuracy and contextual appropriateness.

Simulating high-stakes interactions like Migri interviews is technically feasible and aligns with existing AI applications in training and assessment. However, creating a safe, ethical, and effective simulation requires significant investment in realistic scenario design, based on actual processes, and sophisticated feedback mechanisms that are constructive and sensitive. Given the vulnerability of the users and the importance of these interactions, rigorous testing and ethical oversight are non-negotiable.

Finally, the LCTL status of Finnish means Finntegrate cannot rely on the abundance of data and pre-optimized models available for English. Actively engaging with the Finnish NLP research community, leveraging existing resources like Poro or DigiTala, and potentially contributing back data or models developed during the project could be strategically advantageous, improving the project’s outcome and benefiting the wider ecosystem.

5. Pedagogical Integration of LLMs for Effective Language Learning

Technology alone does not guarantee effective learning. The successful integration of LLMs into language education for immigrants hinges on grounding their use within sound pedagogical principles and practices. Simply providing access to an LLM chatbot is unlikely to yield optimal results; instead, the design and implementation must be informed by research in language acquisition and educational technology, particularly the field of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL).

5.1 Evidence-Based Frameworks and Best Practices

LLM-ALL represents the latest evolution within CALL, a field dedicated to exploring how technology can mediate and enhance language learning. Decades of CALL research emphasize the importance of interactive tasks, meaningful communication, authentic materials, and timely feedback. LLMs offer powerful new ways to implement these principles, for example, by providing readily available conversational partners or generating contextually relevant materials.

A key principle emerging from both CALL research and broader educational technology studies is the value of blended learning. AI tools should be seen as supplements to, rather than replacements for, human interaction and instruction. Human teachers play an irreplaceable role in providing nuanced feedback, cultural insights, emotional support, and strategic guidance on how to use AI tools effectively.

The design of LLM-ALL tools should ideally be informed by established language acquisition theories:

• Interaction Hypothesis (Long): Emphasizes that language acquisition is facilitated through interaction and negotiation of meaning. LLM chatbots provide ample opportunities for interaction, but the quality and depth of that interaction must be sufficient to promote learning.
• Comprehensible Input Hypothesis (Krashen): Posits that learners acquire language by understanding input that is slightly beyond their current level of competence (‘i+1’). LLMs could potentially generate or select texts and dialogues at appropriate difficulty levels, but this requires accurate assessment of the learner’s level and the content’s complexity.
• Output Hypothesis (Swain): Suggests that producing language (speaking/writing) pushes learners to notice gaps in their knowledge and process language more deeply. LLM tools can prompt output and provide feedback.
• Sociocultural Theory (Vygotsky): Highlights the role of social interaction and guidance within the learner’s “Zone of Proximal Development” (ZPD) – the gap between what a learner can do independently and what they can achieve with support. Scaffolding is a key concept derived from this theory.
• Constructivism: Views learning as an active process where learners build understanding through experience and interaction. LLM tools can provide interactive environments for exploration and practice.
• Emergentism/Usage-Based Learning: Argues that language structures emerge from exposure to and use of language patterns, rather than innate rules. LLMs, by providing extensive practice opportunities, align with this perspective.

Best practices therefore involve using LLMs for tasks they are well-suited for (e.g., providing extensive practice, instant feedback on specific error types, generating varied content) while integrating human support for complex explanations, cultural understanding, strategic learning advice, and fostering motivation. The focus should be on designing tasks that promote meaningful communication and active learning.

5.2 Scaffolding, Personalization, and Adaptive Learning Strategies

These three concepts are central to leveraging AI for effective pedagogy.

• Scaffolding: Refers to providing temporary support structures that enable learners to accomplish tasks they couldn’t manage independently, with support gradually withdrawn as competence grows. In LLM-ALL, scaffolding can involve:
  • Task Decomposition: Breaking complex tasks (e.g., writing an email, participating in a simulated interview) into smaller, manageable steps.
  • Modeling: Providing clear examples of target language use or task completion. LLMs can generate model texts or dialogue turns.
  • Prompting/Hinting: Offering suggestions, sentence starters, or hints when learners are stuck. LLMs can generate these dynamically.
  • Simplification: Starting with simpler language or concepts and gradually increasing complexity. LLMs can be prompted to adjust language complexity. LLMs themselves can potentially generate scaffolded explanations or sequences of exercises, but this requires careful pedagogical design and prompting.
• Personalization: AI excels at tailoring learning experiences to individual learner characteristics, including proficiency level, learning pace, interests, and goals. LLMs can analyze learner input and performance data to make these adjustments. Effective personalization relies on accurate learner modeling – representing the learner’s current knowledge state, skills, and potentially non-cognitive factors like motivation or confidence.
• Adaptive Learning: This involves the system dynamically adjusting the learning path, content difficulty, or type of support based on the learner’s real-time performance and inferred needs. LLMs can potentially drive this adaptation by, for example, selecting the next question based on previous answers, adjusting the complexity of generated text, or offering hints only when needed. However, evaluating the true adaptivity of LLM responses and ensuring they align with pedagogical goals is an ongoing research challenge.

5.3 Mechanisms for Effective Feedback within LLM Interactions

Feedback is crucial for language learning, helping learners identify errors, understand corrections, and refine their skills. LLMs can provide various types of feedback:

• Types: Feedback can range from simple corrective feedback (indicating an error) to more elaborate forms, such as explicit correction (providing the right answer), metalinguistic feedback (explaining the underlying grammar rule), clarification requests, or recasts (rephrasing the learner’s utterance correctly). Feedback can also target different linguistic levels (pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, pragmatics).
• LLM Capabilities: LLMs can provide immediate feedback, explain errors (as seen in Duolingo Max), and perform corrections.
• Challenges: LLM-generated feedback can sometimes be generic, lack pedagogical insight, be overly focused on surface errors, or even be incorrect. The model may not understand why the learner made a particular error or what kind of feedback is most conducive to learning at that moment. Achieving pedagogical alignment – ensuring feedback supports learning effectively – is crucial.
• Improving Feedback Quality:
  • Prompt Engineering: Explicitly instructing the LLM on the type and focus of feedback desired (e.g., “Focus on verb conjugation errors and explain the rule,” “Suggest a more polite alternative”).
  • Learning from Human Preferences (LHP): Using techniques like Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) or Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) to train the model to generate feedback that humans rate as more helpful, accurate, and pedagogically sound.
  • Structured Frameworks: Employing pedagogical frameworks, like FELT, to systematically design and evaluate the feedback provided by the LLM.
  • Feedback Loops: Designing the system so that the LLM learns from the effectiveness of its previous feedback, potentially based on subsequent learner performance or explicit user ratings of the feedback itself.

5.4 Implications for Finntegrate

A successful LLM-ALL tool for Finntegrate must be more than just a chatbot capable of conversing in Finnish. Its design must be deeply rooted in pedagogical principles relevant to adult second language acquisition. This means prioritizing meaningful interaction over simple turn-taking, incorporating scaffolding techniques to support learners through challenging aspects of Finnish, and designing feedback mechanisms that are explanatory and promote understanding, not just surface correction. A blended approach, where the LLM tool complements potential human support (e.g., integration advisors, language cafes, formal classes), is likely the most effective strategy.

While the personalization and adaptivity offered by AI are highly desirable, achieving true, pedagogically sound adaptivity with LLMs is complex. It requires sophisticated learner modeling (tracking not just errors, but understanding levels and potentially non-cognitive factors) and algorithms that can dynamically adjust content and support in a principled way. Finntegrate should leverage personalization but recognize that implementing deep adaptivity might require significant development effort and ongoing research, perhaps starting with simpler rule-based adaptations based on performance data.

The quality of feedback is paramount. Finntegrate cannot rely on generic LLM feedback. Investment is needed to ensure the feedback is accurate (especially for Finnish grammar), explanatory, and tailored to the learner’s likely point of confusion. This might involve careful prompt engineering based on pedagogical frameworks, or potentially exploring LHP techniques (RLHF/DPO) if resources allow, to train the model to provide feedback aligned with expert human tutor preferences.

6. Technical Implementation Strategies for LLM-ALL Tools

Developing an effective LLM-assisted language learning tool requires careful consideration of the underlying technology stack, architectural patterns, and specific techniques for guiding model behavior and ensuring quality. Key technical decisions involve selecting the core LLM, choosing between fine-tuning and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), mastering prompt engineering, ensuring cultural and linguistic accuracy, and implementing methods for tracking learner progress to enable adaptation.

6.1 Architectural Choices (incl. RAG for Contextualization)

The foundation of any LLM-ALL tool is the core language model itself. A primary decision lies between using proprietary APIs or open-source models:

• Proprietary APIs: Services like OpenAI’s GPT series, Anthropic’s Claude, and Google’s Gemini offer state-of-the-art performance and ease of access via APIs. However, they entail ongoing costs based on usage, offer limited customization, and raise potential data privacy concerns as user interactions may be processed or stored by the provider.
• Open-Source Models: Models like Meta’s Llama family, Mistral, Gemma, and others provide transparency, greater control, the potential for deep customization via fine-tuning, and the option for local deployment, enhancing data privacy. However, they require significant technical expertise and computational resources for hosting, maintenance, and effective fine-tuning.

Once a base model approach is chosen, several strategies can be employed to tailor it for language learning:

• Fine-tuning: This involves further training a pre-trained model on a smaller, task-specific dataset to adapt its behavior.
  • Methods: Full fine-tuning adjusts all model parameters, while Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT) techniques like Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) modify only a small subset, significantly reducing computational requirements. Instruction Tuning trains the model on examples of instructions and desired outputs to improve its ability to follow directions. Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) or Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) align the model with human preferences for output quality (e.g., helpfulness, harmlessness, pedagogical value).
  • Requirements: High-quality, relevant labeled data is crucial for successful fine-tuning. Tools like Hugging Face, TensorFlow, PyTorch, Torchtune, Unsloth, and FinetuneDB facilitate the process.
• Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG): This architectural pattern enhances LLM responses by retrieving relevant information from an external knowledge base at the time of the query and providing it to the LLM as context.
  • Architecture: Typically involves a retriever (using vector search, keyword search, or hybrid approaches to query a knowledge base, often a vector database) and a generator (the LLM that uses the retrieved context alongside the original prompt).
  • Benefits: Allows the LLM to access up-to-date, domain-specific, or proprietary information without retraining; reduces hallucinations by grounding responses in factual data; can be more cost-effective and easier to update than fine-tuning for knowledge injection.
  • Requirements: Involves setting up a knowledge base, chunking documents into meaningful segments, generating vector embeddings for semantic search, and indexing the data. Tools like Azure AI Search, LlamaIndex, and LangChain support RAG implementation.
  • Relevance for Language Learning: RAG can provide the LLM with specific grammatical rules, vocabulary lists, cultural information, or details about bureaucratic procedures relevant to the learner’s query.

Frameworks like LangChain, LlamaIndex, Hugging Face libraries, and Microsoft’s Semantic Kernel provide building blocks and orchestration capabilities for developing these complex LLM applications.

Table 3: Comparison of RAG vs. Fine-tuning for LLM-ALL Customization

Feature	Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)	Fine-tuning (FT)
Primary Goal	Enhance responses with external, up-to-date, or specific knowledge.	Adapt model’s style, behavior, or knowledge for specific tasks/domains.
Mechanism	Retrieves relevant data at query time to provide context to LLM.	Modifies model weights by training on a specialized dataset.
Knowledge Update	Relatively easy; update the external knowledge base.	Requires retraining/re-fine-tuning the model.
Hallucination Reduction	High; grounds responses in retrieved factual data.	Moderate; improves domain knowledge but doesn’t eliminate hallucination risk.
Adaptation Type	Knowledge augmentation.	Behavioral adaptation, style transfer, implicit knowledge embedding.
Data Requirements	Curated external knowledge base (structured/unstructured).	Labeled task-specific dataset (e.g., instruction pairs, preference data).
Computational Cost (Setup)	Moderate to High (embedding, indexing).	High (training compute). PEFT reduces this significantly.
Computational Cost (Runtime)	Higher per query (retrieval + generation).	Lower per query (generation only, but model might be larger/slower if not PEFT).
Use Case Example (LLM-ALL)	Providing explanations based on specific Finnish grammar rules stored externally; answering questions about current Migri procedures.	Teaching the LLM to adopt a Socratic tutoring style; improving fluency specifically in Finnish; aligning feedback with pedagogical principles.
Key Snippets

6.2 Prompt Engineering Techniques for Language Instruction

Prompt engineering is the art and science of crafting effective inputs (prompts) to elicit desired outputs from LLMs. It is a critical skill for controlling LLM behavior without altering the model itself. Techniques range from basic to advanced:

• Basic Prompting:
  • Zero-shot: Providing only the instruction. Works for simple tasks the model understands from pre-training.
  • Few-shot: Including a small number of examples (input-output pairs) in the prompt to demonstrate the desired format or task.
  • Clarity and Specificity: Prompts should be unambiguous, clearly defining the task, desired output format, tone, and relevant context. Role-playing instructions (“Act as a friendly Finnish tutor”) can shape the response style.
• Advanced Prompting Techniques:
  • Chain-of-Thought (CoT): Prompting the model to “think step-by-step” or providing examples with intermediate reasoning steps. This significantly improves performance on tasks requiring logical reasoning (e.g., explaining complex grammar, solving multi-step problems).
  • Self-Consistency: Generating multiple CoT responses and selecting the most frequent or consistent answer, improving robustness.
  • Generated Knowledge: Prompting the LLM to first generate relevant background knowledge or facts about a topic before answering the main question.
  • ReAct (Reason + Act): Interleaving reasoning steps with actions, such as querying an external tool or knowledge base (like in RAG). Useful for tasks requiring information retrieval or interaction with external systems. FeedA11y uses this to incorporate accessibility feedback.
  • Chain of Verification (CoVe): A multi-step process where the LLM drafts a response, generates questions to verify its claims, answers those questions, and then produces a final, revised response. Aims to reduce factual errors.
  • Directional Stimulus Prompting: Embedding keywords or specific instructions within the prompt to guide the LLM towards desired content or style.
  • Active-Prompt: An iterative technique where the most uncertain or ambiguous prompts (based on model output variance) are selected for human annotation to improve few-shot learning.

For language instruction, these techniques can be used to: request specific types of grammatical explanations, generate exercises targeting particular skills or CEFR levels, simulate nuanced conversational roles (e.g., a Migri official, a friendly neighbour), elicit specific types of feedback (e.g., focusing only on politeness), or guide the generation of culturally appropriate content. Effective prompt engineering is crucial for transforming a general LLM into a specialized language tutor.

6.3 Ensuring Cultural Authenticity and Mitigating Bias

A major challenge is ensuring the LLM’s output is culturally appropriate for the Finnish context and free from harmful biases. LLMs often inherit biases from their training data, which is typically dominated by English and Western cultural perspectives. This can lead to inaccurate representations, stereotyping, and outputs that are inappropriate or even offensive in the target cultural context. Translated benchmarks are often insufficient for evaluation, highlighting the need for culturally authentic resources.

Strategies to address this include:

• Data Curation: Using high-quality, diverse, and culturally representative Finnish data for training or fine-tuning. Actively filtering out toxic, biased, or low-quality data (like poor machine translations found in Finnish web crawls) is essential.
• RAG with Cultural Knowledge: Grounding LLM responses by retrieving information from reliable sources about Finnish culture, social norms, history, and communication styles.
• Bias Detection and Mitigation: Employing automated tools and techniques during development and deployment to identify and reduce biases. Adhering to frameworks for non-discriminatory AI, potentially informed by Finnish regulations like the Non-Discrimination Act.
• Cultural Prompting: While potentially useful as a signal, simply prompting the LLM to “act Finnish” can be unreliable and lead to stereotypes if the model lacks genuine understanding. Requires careful validation.
• Human Review: Continuous oversight by Finnish language experts and individuals with deep cultural understanding is indispensable for validating authenticity and appropriateness. Collaboration with native speakers and cultural consultants is vital.

6.4 Measuring Learner Progress and Adapting Difficulty

To personalize learning effectively, the system must be able to assess learner progress and adapt the difficulty accordingly.

LLMs offer potential in this area:

• Assessment Capabilities: They can evaluate learner responses for accuracy, assess proficiency levels (e.g., against CEFR scales), identify specific error types, and even estimate the difficulty of questions or texts. The model’s own uncertainty or confidence in its predictions can also be an informative signal.
• Progress Tracking: By analyzing patterns in learner interactions over time (e.g., error rates, complexity of language used, response times, use of hints), LLMs can potentially model learner progress.

Methods for assessment and adaptation include:

• Direct Assessment: Prompting the LLM to explicitly grade a response or classify its proficiency level. The reliability of the LLM as an assessor needs careful validation against human experts or established rubrics.
• Performance Metrics: Tracking traditional metrics like accuracy on quizzes, vocabulary recall, task completion rates.
• Interaction Analysis: Analyzing conversational data, such as frequency of errors, types of errors, use of support features like hints, hesitation markers (in speech), or self-corrections, to infer understanding and progress.
• Adaptive Mechanisms: Based on the assessment, the system can adjust:
  • Content: Selecting texts, vocabulary, or grammar points appropriate to the learner’s current level.
  • Task Difficulty: Modifying the complexity of exercises or questions.
  • Scaffolding Level: Providing more or less explicit support, hints, or examples.

Challenges include developing reliable metrics for LLM-based assessment, ensuring alignment with pedagogical goals, and potential limitations of LLMs in performing complex psychometric calculations (like Item Response Theory) without external tools.

6.5 Implications for Finntegrate

From a technical standpoint, a hybrid architecture leveraging RAG appears highly advantageous for Finntegrate. This approach allows the LLM to be grounded in reliable, up-to-date, Finnish-specific information (e.g., Kela regulations, Migri procedures, cultural guides, domain-specific vocabulary lists) without the constant need for expensive and data-intensive retraining. This directly addresses key LLM weaknesses like hallucination and lack of domain knowledge, which are critical concerns when providing information related to integration processes. While RAG handles knowledge grounding, fine-tuning (potentially PEFT) could still be valuable for adapting the LLM’s behavior – for instance, adopting a supportive and encouraging tutoring style, improving its handling of Finnish grammar nuances beyond what RAG provides, or aligning its feedback mechanisms with pedagogical best practices.

Effective interaction design will rely heavily on advanced prompt engineering. Simple question-answering prompts will be insufficient. Techniques like Chain-of-Thought (for explaining rules or processes), ReAct (for integrating retrieved information seamlessly), and potentially Chain of Verification (for critical information) will be necessary to create engaging, accurate, and pedagogically sound learning experiences, especially for simulating complex interactions or providing structured feedback.

Measuring progress robustly requires moving beyond simple LLM self-assessment. Finntegrate should plan for a system that integrates multiple data points: LLM-based evaluation of responses (carefully validated), traditional performance metrics on structured exercises, and potentially analysis of interaction patterns (e.g., frequency of help requests, types of errors made over time). This multi-faceted approach provides a more reliable basis for adapting the learning difficulty and providing personalized support.

7. Ethical and Practical Considerations for the Finntegrate Context

Deploying LLM-based tools, especially for vulnerable populations like immigrants navigating integration, necessitates rigorous attention to ethical principles and practical usability challenges. Failure to address these aspects can undermine user trust, exacerbate inequalities, and potentially cause harm.

7.1 Data Privacy, Security, and GDPR Compliance

• Data Sensitivity: Information shared during language learning, particularly in integration contexts, can be highly personal and sensitive. This includes details about immigration status, family situations, personal challenges, opinions, and learning difficulties. Protecting this data is paramount.
• GDPR Requirements: Operating in Finland places the Finntegrate project squarely under the purview of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Key principles include:
  • Lawful Basis: Processing must have a legal justification (e.g., explicit, informed consent). Consent must be freely given and withdrawable.
  • Purpose Limitation: Data collected for one purpose cannot be reused for another without justification/consent.
  • Data Minimization: Only necessary data should be collected and processed.
  • Transparency: Users must be clearly informed about data collection, processing, and their rights.
  • User Rights: Including the right to access, rectify, and erase personal data (Right to be Forgotten).
  • Security: Appropriate technical and organizational measures must be taken to protect data.
  • Accountability: Organizations must demonstrate compliance, often requiring Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) for high-risk processing (which AI applications involving vulnerable groups likely qualify for).
• LLM-Specific Risks: Using third-party LLM APIs introduces risks, as interaction data might be logged, stored, or used for further training by the provider, potentially violating GDPR if not handled correctly. There’s also the risk of data breaches at the provider level or accidental disclosure of training data through model queries.
• Mitigation and Best Practices:
  • Privacy by Design: Embed privacy considerations from the start.
  • Data Handling: Implement strict data minimization, anonymization, or pseudonymization where possible. Use robust encryption.
  • Consent Management: Obtain clear, specific, and informed consent for all data processing activities.
  • Transparency: Provide clear, accessible privacy policies explaining data usage.
  • Technical Measures: Use secure infrastructure and consider local/on-premise deployment of open-source models for maximum data control. Evaluate the privacy policies and compliance of any third-party services used.
  • User Control: Provide users with mechanisms to access and manage their data.
  • Example: The AILEM app for refugees explicitly states a goal of GDPR compliance and data encryption.

7.2 Addressing Algorithmic Bias and Ensuring Fairness

LLMs are known to inherit and potentially amplify societal biases present in their training data. This is particularly concerning for immigrant users who may already face discrimination.

• Sources and Manifestations: Bias often stems from the overrepresentation of English and Western perspectives in training data. It can manifest as:
  • Stereotyping: Associating certain groups with specific traits or issues (e.g., linking Hispanic backgrounds to illegal immigration, assuming gender roles).
  • Unequal Performance: Models may be less accurate or provide lower-quality responses for users with non-native accents, specific dialects, or from certain regions.
  • Discriminatory Outputs: Generating unfair recommendations (e.g., job suggestions) or biased information.
  • Harmful Content: Generating toxic, offensive, or culturally insensitive language.
• Mitigation Strategies:
  • Data Diversity: Prioritize using diverse, representative, and culturally authentic Finnish data for fine-tuning or RAG knowledge bases. Filter out problematic content.
  • Bias Auditing: Regularly assess the model and its outputs for biases using specific tools and metrics. Finland has initiatives focused on non-discriminatory AI frameworks.
  • Debiasing Techniques: Apply technical methods during or after training to reduce identified biases.
  • Fairness-Aware Design: Incorporate fairness considerations throughout the development lifecycle.
  • Human Oversight: Crucial for identifying subtle biases and ensuring culturally appropriate outputs.
  • Alignment Techniques: Use methods like RLHF to align models with principles of fairness and harmlessness.

7.3 Managing LLM Limitations (e.g., Hallucinations, Reliability)

LLMs are not infallible and possess inherent limitations that must be managed, especially when providing information crucial for integration.

• Hallucinations: LLMs can generate confident-sounding but factually incorrect or nonsensical information. This is a major risk when dealing with legal, procedural, or health information.
• Outdated Knowledge: Models trained on static datasets lack awareness of recent events or changes in regulations unless updated or supplemented.
• Inconsistency: Responses can vary significantly based on subtle changes in prompting.
• Lack of Understanding: LLMs manipulate symbols based on learned patterns; they do not possess genuine understanding, common sense, or critical reasoning abilities.
• Mitigation:
  • Grounding (RAG): Using RAG to base responses on verified external knowledge sources significantly reduces hallucinations and ensures up-to-date information.
  • Fact-Checking/Verification: Implementing mechanisms for the LLM to verify its claims (e.g., CoVe prompting) or integrating external fact-checking tools.
  • Transparency and Disclaimers: Clearly communicating the tool’s limitations to users and advising them to verify critical information independently.
  • Human-in-the-Loop: Incorporating human review for sensitive or critical information generation or validation.

7.4 Ensuring Accessibility and Catering to Varying Digital Literacy Levels

For an LLM tool to be effective for immigrants, it must be accessible and usable by individuals with diverse backgrounds and technical skills.

• Web Accessibility: Interfaces must adhere to accessibility standards (e.g., WCAG) to be usable by people with disabilities. LLM-generated interfaces themselves need accessibility checks. Multimodal features (text-to-speech, speech recognition) can enhance accessibility.
• Digital Literacy: Immigrants and refugees exhibit a wide range of digital literacy skills. Complex AI tools may be intimidating or difficult to use effectively without prior experience or training. The design should prioritize intuitive interfaces, clear instructions, and potentially offer tutorials or support. AI literacy programs could be beneficial.
• Digital Divide: Unequal access to reliable internet connections and suitable devices remains a challenge. Offering offline functionality where possible can increase reach.
• Language Barriers in Tool Use: The user interface itself must be accessible. If the interface is only in Finnish or English, it may pose a barrier to beginners. Providing multilingual interface options is important.

7.5 Implications for Finntegrate

The ethical and practical dimensions are not secondary considerations but core requirements for Finntegrate. Given the target users are immigrants, many potentially belonging to vulnerable groups, prioritizing data privacy (GDPR) and proactive bias mitigation is non-negotiable. This necessitates a transparent approach, potentially favouring open-source solutions hosted locally or employing techniques like federated learning to minimize sensitive data transfer. Rigorous bias testing, diverse data sourcing, and ongoing human oversight are essential to build trust and ensure fairness.

Practical usability is equally critical. The tool’s interface must be designed for simplicity and intuitiveness, acknowledging that users will have varied digital literacy levels. Providing the interface and support materials in multiple languages commonly spoken by immigrant communities in Finland, alongside Finnish and English, will be crucial for initial adoption and usability. Considering offline capabilities could broaden accessibility.

Finally, managing LLM unreliability is vital, especially when the tool provides information about critical services or procedures. Grounding the LLM’s responses using RAG with verified, official Finnish sources (e.g., Migri website, Kela documentation, official cultural guides) is a key strategy to enhance accuracy and timeliness. Clear disclaimers about the tool’s limitations and guidance on when to seek human advice (e.g., from integration advisors) must be prominently displayed. Integrating human support channels within or alongside the LLM tool could provide essential backup for complex or sensitive queries.

8. Future Directions and Opportunities

The field of LLM-ALL is evolving rapidly, presenting both exciting future possibilities and identifiable gaps that the Finntegrate project could potentially address. Understanding emerging trends and current limitations is crucial for strategic planning.

8.1 Emerging Trends

Several key trends are shaping the future of LLMs and their application in education and language learning:

• Multimodal Learning: Moving beyond text-only interactions, multimodal AI integrates text, speech, images, and video. In language learning, this could mean analyzing learner pronunciation via audio, providing visual aids (images, diagrams) for vocabulary or concepts, using video for contextual learning, or even analyzing gestures in VR environments. Multimodal Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) are an active area of research.
• Agentic AI Tutors: AI systems are becoming more autonomous, capable of setting goals, planning multi-step actions, interacting with tools, and adapting proactively with less direct human prompting. In LLM-ALL, this could translate to tutors that can independently devise personalized learning plans, select appropriate activities, monitor progress over longer terms, and provide more sophisticated, context-aware guidance. However, this increased autonomy also raises significant ethical questions regarding control, oversight, and potential unintended consequences.
• Enhanced Personalization and Adaptivity: Research continues to focus on improving how AI systems model learners, including not just cognitive skills but also non-cognitive aspects like motivation, confidence, or learning style. This enables more sophisticated adaptation algorithms that can tailor instruction more precisely.
• Improved Feedback Mechanisms: Efforts are underway to move beyond simple corrective feedback towards more nuanced, pedagogically grounded, and actionable feedback. This involves developing better LHP techniques and potentially enabling models to self-improve based on the effectiveness of their past feedback.
• Domain-Specific and Smaller Models: While large, general-purpose models continue to advance, there is a growing trend towards developing smaller, more efficient models fine-tuned for specific domains (e.g., Med-PaLM 2 for healthcare). These models can offer comparable or even superior performance on targeted tasks with lower computational costs and potentially greater control. This could lead to specialized LLMs for language education or even specific languages like Finnish.
• Increased Focus on Ethics, Safety, and Alignment: As LLMs become more powerful and integrated into society, there is a growing emphasis on developing them responsibly. This includes robust methods for bias mitigation, ensuring fairness, enhancing transparency, preventing harmful outputs, and aligning AI behavior with human values and ethical principles.

8.2 Identifying Gaps and Opportunities for Finntegrate

Based on the analysis of the current landscape and future trends, several gaps and corresponding opportunities emerge for the Finntegrate project:

• Gap 1: Deep Pedagogical Integration: Many existing LLM-ALL tools prioritize technological features over pedagogical soundness. There is a significant opportunity for Finntegrate to differentiate itself by designing an LLM tool explicitly grounded in evidence-based language teaching methodologies suitable for adult L2 learners facing integration challenges. This involves incorporating principles from CALL, focusing on meaningful interaction, providing effective scaffolding (particularly for complex Finnish grammar), and implementing robust, explanatory feedback mechanisms.
• Gap 2: Finnish-Specific Linguistic and Cultural Nuance: Current LLMs, even those supporting Finnish, often struggle with the language’s complexities and fail to capture the nuances of Finnish culture and pragmatic communication, especially in official contexts. This presents an opportunity for Finntegrate to develop or adapt an LLM solution specifically tailored to the Finnish integration context. This could involve fine-tuning models like Poro on relevant data (e.g., integration course materials, official communications) and heavily utilizing RAG to ground responses in verified information about Finnish society, bureaucracy, and cultural norms.
• Gap 3: Holistic Integration Support: Most language learning tools focus solely on language skills. However, integration is broader, encompassing cultural understanding, navigating services, and finding employment. Finntegrate has the opportunity to create a more holistic LLM-powered tool that integrates language learning with practical integration support. This could involve using RAG to provide up-to-date information on services, cultural orientation content, and potentially basic job-seeking advice, all linked to relevant language practice.
• Gap 4: Addressing Vulnerability and Building Trust: While ethical considerations are increasingly discussed, few tools are explicitly designed from the ground up with the specific vulnerabilities and trust requirements of immigrant and refugee populations in mind. Finntegrate has an opportunity to lead by example, developing a tool that prioritizes user privacy (potentially through open-source models and privacy-preserving techniques like federated learning), transparency, fairness, and accessibility. Building trust through ethical design and clear communication could be a key differentiator and critical success factor.
• Gap 5: LCTL Resource Development: The scarcity of high-quality data and models for Finnish hinders development. Finntegrate has the opportunity to contribute to the Finnish language technology ecosystem. By curating relevant datasets (e.g., anonymized interaction data focused on integration scenarios, domain-specific vocabulary lists) or sharing insights from model fine-tuning, the project could help address the LCTL resource gap, benefiting future research and development in Finnish LLM-ALL.

Addressing these gaps provides a pathway for Finntegrate to create a truly valuable and impactful tool that goes beyond existing offerings, specifically catering to the unique needs of immigrants learning Finnish for successful integration.

9. Recommendations for Finntegrate

Based on the comprehensive analysis of LLM-assisted language learning (LLM-ALL) capabilities, limitations, pedagogical considerations, technical strategies, ethical imperatives, and future trends, the following recommendations are provided for the Finntegrate project. These recommendations aim to guide the strategic development and deployment of an LLM-based tool to support Finnish language acquisition for immigrant integration.

9.1 Strategic Focus and Scope

• Recommendation 1: Prioritize High-Impact Integration Scenarios. Focus development efforts on LLM applications that directly address the most critical language barriers faced by immigrants during integration. Based on the research, prime areas include:
  • Bureaucratic Interaction Simulation: Develop a module simulating interactions with key Finnish authorities (e.g., Migri, Kela, TE Offices), focusing on understanding procedures, practicing common questions/answers, and learning relevant vocabulary. This requires careful scenario design and grounding in accurate information (likely via RAG).
  • Domain-Specific Vocabulary Training: Create tools for learning vocabulary specific to essential domains like healthcare, education, job searching, and common workplaces in Finland.
  • Basic Conversational Practice: Offer structured practice for everyday social and service encounters (e.g., shopping, asking for directions, basic workplace chat).
• Recommendation 2: Adopt a Holistic but Focused Approach. While language is central, integrate relevant contextual information where feasible. Use RAG to provide access to verified information about Finnish society, cultural norms, and essential services alongside language practice, addressing Gap 3. Avoid scope creep; focus initially on language skills directly tied to navigating integration milestones.

9.2 Pedagogical Design

• Recommendation 3: Ground Design in Evidence-Based Pedagogy. Explicitly base the tool’s design on established principles of adult L2 acquisition and CALL. Focus on:
  • Meaningful Interaction: Design tasks that require genuine communication, not just pattern repetition.
  • Scaffolding: Implement features that provide temporary support (hints, models, simplified language, task breakdown) that fades as learners progress.
  • Explanatory Feedback: Move beyond simple right/wrong feedback. Use prompt engineering or LHP techniques to ensure the LLM provides clear explanations for errors, particularly for grammar and pragmatics.
• Recommendation 4: Promote Blended Learning. Position the LLM tool as a supplement to, not a replacement for, other integration support mechanisms (e.g., formal courses, language cafes, integration advisors). Encourage users to combine AI practice with real-world interaction.

9.3 Technical Implementation

• Recommendation 5: Strongly Consider a RAG-Centric Architecture. Utilize RAG to ground the LLM in verified, up-to-date Finnish-specific knowledge bases (laws, cultural information, official procedures, curriculum content). This is crucial for accuracy and relevance, especially for bureaucratic language support, and helps mitigate hallucinations.
• Recommendation 6: Explore Targeted Fine-tuning (PEFT). While RAG addresses knowledge grounding, consider Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT) on a suitable open-source base model (potentially a Finnish-centric one like Poro, if mature enough) to:
  • Improve handling of Finnish linguistic nuances.
  • Instill a specific pedagogical style (e.g., supportive, Socratic).
  • Enhance pragmatic and cultural appropriateness beyond what prompting/RAG achieves.
• Recommendation 7: Invest in Advanced Prompt Engineering. Develop sophisticated prompts using techniques like Chain-of-Thought, ReAct, and structured instructions to control LLM behavior for specific learning tasks (e.g., simulations, explanations, feedback generation).
• Recommendation 8: Leverage and Contribute to Open-Source. Whenever feasible, build upon existing open-source models and frameworks (e.g., Hugging Face ecosystem, LangChain, Finnish models). Consider contributing back anonymized data, findings, or tools to strengthen the Finnish LCTL ecosystem [Gap 5].

9.4 Ethical and Practical Implementation

• Recommendation 9: Prioritize Privacy and GDPR Compliance. Implement a strict privacy-by-design approach. Use clear consent forms, minimize data collection, employ anonymization/pseudonymization, and ensure robust data security. Carefully vet third-party APIs or strongly consider local deployment of open-source models to maintain data control. Conduct a DPIA.
• Recommendation 10: Actively Mitigate Bias. Conduct thorough bias audits of chosen models and training/RAG data. Use diverse and culturally vetted Finnish data sources. Implement bias mitigation techniques and ensure continuous human oversight to check for fairness and cultural appropriateness.
• Recommendation 11: Ensure High Accessibility and Usability. Design an intuitive, user-friendly interface suitable for varying digital literacy levels. Provide interface options and basic instructions in multiple languages relevant to Finland’s immigrant population. Test usability extensively with target users. Consider offline features if feasible.
• Recommendation 12: Manage LLM Limitations Transparently. Implement RAG and verification steps to maximize reliability. Clearly communicate the tool’s limitations (potential for errors, lack of true understanding) and advise users to verify critical information through official channels or human advisors.

9.5 Implementation Pathways (Resource Dependent)

• Lower Resource Pathway:
  • Leverage existing commercial APIs (e.g., GPT-4o, Claude 3.5) known for strong multilingual capabilities, accepting potential limitations in Finnish nuance and data privacy risks (mitigated through strict data handling protocols).
  • Focus heavily on RAG using high-quality, publicly available Finnish resources (government websites, cultural guides).
  • Utilize advanced prompt engineering to guide behavior for prioritized scenarios (e.g., basic conversation, vocabulary).
  • Develop a simple, highly accessible web-based interface.
• Medium Resource Pathway:
  • Utilize a high-performing open-source model (e.g., Llama 3.1, Mistral Large) hosted locally or via a trusted provider.
  • Implement a robust RAG system with curated internal and external Finnish knowledge bases.
  • Apply PEFT fine-tuning for specific behavioral adaptations (e.g., tutoring style, basic Finnish grammar handling).
  • Develop a more feature-rich application with progress tracking and basic adaptivity.
  • Invest in thorough bias auditing and mitigation.
• Higher Resource Pathway:
  • Fine-tune a large Finnish-specific open-source model (e.g., Poro, if available/suitable) or a leading multilingual model extensively on custom Finnish integration-focused datasets.
  • Combine advanced fine-tuning (including LHP for feedback quality) with a sophisticated RAG architecture.
  • Develop a highly personalized and adaptive learning system with robust learner modeling and multimodal capabilities (if deemed beneficial).
  • Implement comprehensive ethical safeguards, potentially exploring federated learning.
  • Contribute significantly to the open-source Finnish LCTL ecosystem.

Regardless of the pathway, continuous evaluation, user feedback incorporation, and iterative development are essential for success.

10. Conclusion

The challenge of learning Finnish represents a significant impediment to the successful integration of immigrants in Finland. Large Language Models present a compelling technological opportunity to augment traditional language learning methods, offering scalable, interactive, and potentially personalized support. This report has synthesized current research and applications, revealing that while LLMs demonstrate effectiveness in areas like vocabulary acquisition, conversational practice, and basic feedback provision, significant challenges remain. These include accurately handling the complexities of Finnish grammar, ensuring pragmatic and cultural appropriateness, mitigating inherent biases, managing reliability issues like hallucinations, and grounding applications in sound pedagogical principles.

For the Finntegrate project, a path forward involves strategically leveraging LLM strengths while actively mitigating their weaknesses. A focus on high-impact integration scenarios, such as navigating bureaucracy and acquiring domain-specific language, appears most promising. Technical solutions should prioritize grounding LLM outputs in verified Finnish-specific information, likely through Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), potentially supplemented by targeted fine-tuning to enhance linguistic accuracy and pedagogical alignment. Sophisticated prompt engineering will be crucial for eliciting desired learning interactions.

Critically, the development and deployment must be guided by stringent ethical considerations, particularly data privacy under GDPR and the proactive mitigation of algorithmic bias, given the vulnerable nature of the target user group. Ensuring accessibility and usability for individuals with diverse digital literacy levels is also paramount for equitable impact.

While the potential of LLMs is considerable, they are tools, not panaceas. Their effectiveness within Finntegrate will depend not just on the technology itself, but on thoughtful pedagogical design, robust technical implementation, unwavering ethical commitment, and a clear understanding of the specific needs and context of immigrants integrating into Finnish society. By carefully navigating these complexities, Finntegrate can potentially harness LLMs to create a valuable resource that genuinely supports newcomers in overcoming the language barrier and achieving successful integration. Future research and iterative development, ideally in collaboration with the Finnish language technology community, will be essential for realizing this potential fully.

Works cited

1. Opeton - Learn to speak a second language, accessed May 2, 2025, https://www.opeton.co/
2. Mastering Finnish with the Help of AI Language Technology - Opeton, accessed May 2, 2025, https://www.opeton.co/blog/mastering-finnish-with-help-of-ai-language-technology
3. Learn Finnish with AI instead of Duolingo - Opeton, accessed May 2, 2025, https://www.opeton.co/blog/learn-finnish-with-ai-instead-of-duolingo
4. alidiamond1/AI-Language-Tutor - GitHub, accessed May 2, 2025, https://github.com/alidiamond1/AI-Language-Tutor
5. shakedzy/companion: Generative-AI-Powered Foreign … - GitHub, accessed May 2, 2025, https://github.com/shakedzy/companion
6. zjunlp/KnowLM: An Open-sourced Knowledgable Large … - GitHub, accessed May 2, 2025, https://github.com/zjunlp/KnowLM